Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Zimbabwe

Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: Serious violations of human rights take place in Zimbabwe on a daily basis. We, together with our international partners, will continue to press the Government of Zimbabwe to end those and to restore democracy and the rule of law.

Michael Jack: In thanking the Minister for his answer, may I say that many fine words have been expended, but such an answer indicates that their effect has been limited? As a democrat, may I ask him what steps he, his fellow Ministers and other members of the international community will take to ensure that the intimidation and fear that has been so typical of electioneering in Zimbabwe in the past will not affect the election scheduled for March next year? The best antidote to human rights abuses in that country is a proper, freely elected Parliament. What steps will he take to ensure that that happens next year?

Chris Mullin: Ultimately, of course, whether there is a free election in Zimbabwe will be a matter for the authorities there. We have been doing all that we can to put pressure on all interested parties to enable free elections to take place. We have been talking to the Southern African Development Community, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are EU sanctions. We have also done what the Opposition have been pressing us to do for a long time: an EU resolution is to be proposed at the United Nations, which will be debated later this month.

Nicholas Winterton: While we are grateful to the Minister for that reply, will he not admit to the House that the human rights situation is deteriorating? We have seen the 15-month imprisonment with hard labour of Roy Bennett, the expulsion of the Congress of South African Trade Unions from Zimbabwe, and the law that prevents people from getting aid and food to those who are starving—and if they are found to do it without going through an official Government source, they can be heavily punished. Cannot the Government come forward with some new initiatives to bring about an end to the most tyrannical of regimes in Africa?

Chris Mullin: Certainly, I am prepared to admit that the situation in Zimbabwe is getting worse. What I am not prepared to do is pretend that there is some magic solution that no one else has thought of, which will somehow make everything right. What is going on in Zimbabwe is primarily the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe. Over a long period, we have been at the forefront, with our allies in Europe and elsewhere and at the United Nations, of putting what pressure we can on the Government of Zimbabwe to behave decently, but I regret to say that I see no sign so far that their behaviour is about to change.

Kate Hoey: The Minister may say that there is no magic solution, which of course is true, but will he give us his views on the expulsion of the COSATU delegation and particularly the reaction of President Mbeki, who seemed to be angry with the COSATU delegation for even visiting? Now that COSATU and the Communist party, which are allies of the South African Government, have said that Mbeki's quiet diplomacy is not working, is not this the time for this Government to put pressure on President Mbeki and say that he is not carrying out his side of the bargain on the New Partnership for Africa's Development agreement?

Chris Mullin: We have been discussing the situation in Zimbabwe with the South Africans for a long time, and President Mbeki is as aware as any of the rest of us about what is going on there. No doubt the expulsion of the trade union delegation will have been a timely reminder to him. What I will not do is engage in megaphone discussion with the South Africans or anyone else on the subject.

Ann Clwyd: May I bring to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that the Inter-Parliamentary Union human rights commission has just published its report after a visit to Zimbabwe? It stated that it was
	"appalled at the high number of beatings, other ill treatment and torture reportedly being inflicted on MPs".
	That involved at least 28 Members of Parliament. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that the case of Roy Bennett in particular needs strong representations from our Government.

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the way in which members of opposition parties have been treated over a long period. The statistics, which we have discussed in the House previously, are shocking: 97 per cent. of opposition MPs have been subject to intimidation and violence; 24 per cent. of opposition MPs have survived assassination attempts; 16 per cent. say that they have been tortured; and three have died following assaults. That says it all about the state of life and the state of democracy in Mr. Mugabe's Zimbabwe. As far as Roy Bennett is concerned, we do not condone what he did, but the sentence is wholly disproportionate to the offence, and he was severely provoked.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that it is all very well for him to stand at the Dispatch Box wringing his hands, but—while no one doubts his sincerity—we expect this matter to be higher on the Prime Minister's and the Foreign Secretary's agenda? Can he not take an initiative, and can the Foreign Secretary not go to South Africa specifically to see President Mbeki and try to persuade him to take a proper statesmanlike line?

Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the issue regularly with President Mbeki and indeed with many other leaders, most recently in New York at the end of September.
	No one is standing here wringing their hands. We all agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is totally unacceptable. What we are interested in is constructive discussion. We have had one or two such discussions, and have tended to follow them up. As I have said, what we are not prepared to do is stand around pretending that there is some solution that no one else has thought of. If there were such a solution, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have put it to me just now.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the problem of Zimbabwe was in Zimbabwe's own hands, and that it needed to elect a new Government to end the Mugabe regime. Does he accept, however, that intimidation was worse before the last election than during it? South Africa is the other country with influence in Zimbabwe, and through its relationships with other African countries in the region. There is an urgent need for us to talk to the South African Government in order to ensure that the election in March next year is as free and fair as possible.

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend is right. What will matter is not whether there is relative freedom during the two or three weeks of the election period—which will probably not be the case—but what goes on in the run-up to the election.
	Yes, we will pursue the matter with the South Africans, and with our other African friends and allies.

International Atomic Energy Agency

David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Jack Straw: The United Kingdom is actively involved in the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I meet its director, Dr. el-Baradei, from time to time. Currently, the agency's main focus is Iran. Over the weekend, senior officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the European Union met Iranian officials in Paris. They negotiated a draft text designed to give us confidence that Iran is not developing its most sensitive nuclear technologies while we seek to agree long-term arrangements for Iran's nuclear power programmes.
	I very much hope that the Government of Iran accept the draft, including the need for a full suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing and all related activities.

David Heath: I welcome the terms of the Paris agreement. What is the status of the agreement, and does the Foreign Secretary expect all parties to accept it at Head of Government level before the 25 November meeting of the IAEA? Will the message that the Prime Minister will take to President Bush be that of Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese Foreign Minister—namely that reference of Iran to the United Nations at this stage would only complicate matters? Most important, will the Foreign Secretary confirm his statement that he could foresee no circumstances in which the United Kingdom could support military action against Iran by the United States?

Jack Straw: I am happy to confirm what I said. I preceded it with the statement that I knew of no suggestions emanating from the United States of any idea of military action, but I then made it absolutely clear that I could envisage no circumstances in which military action would be justified, and that it formed no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
	The text of the agreement is a draft text ad referendum to capitals. The three Governments—France, Germany and the United Kingdom—have agreed the text, and we now look to the Government of Iran to agree it as well. It provides a way through for all sides.
	On the issue of reference to the UN Security Council, in October 2003 an agreement was reached in Tehran whereby we provided a process for Iran to rectify its previous failure to comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. In return, we agreed not to refer the matter to the Security Council—provided that Iran suspended all uranium enrichment, reprocessing and related activities. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Iranian Government that the E3—the three European Governments—and the European Union reserve the right to refer the matter to the Security Council if that requirement is not met.

Michael Clapham: In the context of the discussions with the IAEA, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about press reports suggesting that the UK is to support the construction of a light water reactor in Iran in return for their abandoning their weapons programme? Is that part of a programme to create a nuclear-free zone in the middle east? If that is to be the way forward, how will he go about giving the Israelis an incentive to come on board?

Jack Straw: All non-nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty have a right under article IV of the NPT to develop, research and produce nuclear power. A light water reactor is obviously one important way of doing that, and there have indeed been informal discussions with the Iranians about the provision of technology in that regard. One reason why we believe it very important that this agreement be reached is so that there can be complete confidence that the Iranians' nuclear research and technology programme is directed only to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, and that any possibility that they are using it to develop a nuclear weapons programme is eliminated.
	On Israel, yes, it is our policy for there to be a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and we look to Israel—as we look to India and Pakistan—to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Ayatollah Khamenei in particular made great play of the fact that Iran is an emerging democracy with presumably peaceful intent, but those assurances are not worth much until the Iranians give full account of their nuclear invoices to the IAEA. Surely they cannot have it both ways.

Jack Straw: We made it clear to Iran that the whole international community, who have agreed successive resolutions by consensus through the IAEA board of governors, expects it to enable them to have full confidence about the nature of its intentions. The Iranians say that they have no intentions or programme leading to the development and use of nuclear weapons; what we have to have is proof.

Llew Smith: While I accept that Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and taking into account what the Secretary of State has just said, does he believe that it would be good if IAEA inspectors visited Israel to examine, and report back on, the full extent and truth of its nuclear programme?

Jack Straw: Israel, like India and Pakistan, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, but as I have already made clear to the House, we believe that it should be, and that it should then be subject to the normal safeguards and agreements laid down by the NPT itself.

Iraq

James Gray: What assessment he has made of the impact that the result of the US presidential election will have on UK foreign policy in Iraq.

Jack Straw: We will continue our pattern of close co-operation and consultation with the United States Administration on all matters of common concern, including Iraq.
	The crucial challenge now for the whole international community—and above all for the people of Iraq—is fully to implement Security Council resolution 1546, which lays down the timetable for elections to be held by the end of January. Work on these elections is well in hand; however, a hard core of terrorists and insurgents is currently seeking to prevent the Iraqi people from exercising their democratic right to free elections. Tragically, those terrorists refused to negotiate a peaceful solution, which is why the Iraqi Interim Government found it necessary to order the current military action in Falluja.

James Gray: Leaving aside Falluja, it has been an astonishing week in Iraqi politics. There were the tragic events surrounding Camp Dogwood, and in Palestine an apparent power vacuum may well influence the outcome of events in Iraq. On top of all that comes Sir Stephen Wall's devastating announcement this week that in his view the war had no basis in international law in the first place. Is it not time that we had an urgent and fundamental review of our entire position on Iraq?

Jack Straw: If it is the hon. Gentleman's view that, regardless of the position individuals took at the time of the military action, we should walk away from Iraq and hand it over to the terrorists and insurgents, let me tell him that that is certainly not the view of the Iraqi people or of the whole international community. What fine British forces, including the Black Watch, are doing, alongside contributors from 30 other members of the international community, is seeking to implement a Security Council resolution passed unanimously, which laid down that those multinational forces had the duty
	"to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq . . . including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that . . . the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities".
	I very much hope that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not the view of Conservative Front Benchers.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend referred to the Iraqi elections. Is it the case that any party or grouping in Iraq is free to put forward representatives to stand in that election, or are there some restrictions? If there are restrictions, who is entitled to draw them up and lay them down?

Jack Straw: There are, I believe, some limited restrictions in respect of former senior members of the Ba'ath party. That aside, the decisions are in the hands of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations, particularly Carlos Valenzuela and Mrs. Perelli. I am absolutely clear that the process for elections is satisfactory and that the atmosphere for them will also be satisfactory, provided—a big and important proviso—that the terrorists and insurgents can be persuaded by one means or another to allow the Iraqi people to have their say in those elections.

Michael Ancram: In referring to Iraq, may I start by paying tribute to our courageous forces who have been in action there this week and by offering our sympathy to those who have been wounded and to the families of those who have died? Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Prime Minister will use his forthcoming visit to the President of the United States to press certain elements of policy in relation to Iraq? In particular, will he press for a substantial plan for reconstruction and job creation to provide hope for the many unemployed and resentful Iraqis who are currently ready recruits to insurgency?
	Secondly, alongside our military representation, will the Foreign Secretary press for the appointment of a senior British political figure to provide high-level political advice within the joint councils of the Interim Government and the multilateral forces? Can the Foreign Secretary urge the Prime Minister to make sure that, on this occasion, Britain's voice is not only heard, but heeded?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expression of sympathy and condolences to those members of the Black Watch who have been killed in action south of Baghdad. Our hearts, prayers and thoughts go out to the families and we salute the extraordinary courage and fortitude shown by the Black Watch and all other units of the British forces in that theatre.
	The Prime Minister will indeed be discussing Iraq when he meets President Bush on Thursday and Friday. I have to say that there are already well-developed plans for reconstruction and job creation, and many of them are working. There has been a large increase in employment and in GDP in Iraq. What is holding back Iraq's development is the terrorism and insurgency. That is why it has to be dealt with.
	On senior political advice, the Iraqis know that their Government are independent and sovereign, albeit appointed and approved by the United Nations. It is important for Iraq to have elections. I have the highest confidence—I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman does, too—in our senior ambassador in Baghdad, Edward Chaplin, and all his colleagues.

Michael Ancram: Will the Foreign Secretary now concede that the precipitate disbandment after the war of the Iraqi armed forces, the Iraqi police and much of the Iraqi civil service created a security and employment vacuum, which has, in the event, been filled by violence? Will he accept that that was an error, for which the price is now being paid on the ground? Will he therefore also urge the Prime Minister to press on the President the need for a more accelerated and better rewarded process of recruitment, training and deployment of Iraqi police and internal security forces to fill that vacuum and thus allow for an earlier phased reduction of multilateral forces, including our own?

Jack Straw: It is really important that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seek to make the victims of the violence appear to be its perpetrators. Ever since the end of the major conflict in April 2003, there has been violence in Iraq because of the activity of the terrorists and insurgents. We must be absolutely clear that they are the cause of the casualties. There are no incidents or casualties in those provinces of Iraq where there is no insurgency. Everybody needs to recognise that central fact.

David Winnick: I recognise that those who kidnap, torture and behead their prisoners certainly do not want democratic elections in any circumstances. However, would it not be useful for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to explain to President Bush at their meeting this week that winning hearts and minds in Iraq will not depend only on military campaigns, however successful they are? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international community is watching events in Iraq very closely indeed?

Jack Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Winning hearts and minds is fundamental, and that is well understood by Prime Minister Allawi and his colleagues in the Iraqi Interim Government. That is why, to my certain knowledge, they went to very extensive lengths to try to secure peaceful solutions to the problems faced in Falluja. I was with Prime Minister Allawi when he was engaged in similar activities in respect of the insurgency in Sadr city. Thanks to his flexibility and forbearance, a settlement there was reached while I was in Baghdad four weeks ago, and it has stuck. That is what he wanted for Falluja, as did we, but the world has to know that the military action tragically taking place there now does not stem from a lack of effort by the Iraqi Interim Government. It is a direct result of the intransigence of the terrorists and insurgents, who literally are holding Falluja hostage in an attempt to prevent the elections from taking place.

Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary's sentiments in respect of the Black Watch? Not the least of my reasons for doing so is the fact that the regiment recruits in my constituency.
	Will the Foreign Secretary say what influence UK foreign policy has on the US Government, especially in relation to American forces' actions in Falluja? The Black Watch regiment is inevitably associated with those forces now. Does he agree that we must ensure that those actions are proportionate and consistent with international law, and that they do not alienate the people of Iraq or cause unnecessary civilian casualties?

Jack Straw: First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about the Black Watch, and for his expression of condolences. I appreciate that the deaths and injuries suffered by soldiers in such difficult circumstances is a trauma for the whole of the community in those areas where there is recruitment to the Black Watch. In saluting the soldiers, we also salute the courage, forbearance and support provided by their families.
	In respect of the action in Falluja, the Iraqi Interim Government have been in charge of military strategy since the passage of UN resolution 1546. It was Prime Minister Allawi who ordered the Falluja action, and Iraqi national forces are working alongside US forces. The right hon. and learned Member will know that the US Government have gone on record repeatedly as saying that they subscribe to their obligations under international law, as do other state parties to the UN charter.

Harry Barnes: When Iraqis and others oppose the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, is not it entirely legitimate for them to demonstrate, publish their ideas, and run relevant candidates in the coming elections? However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely illegitimate to use terrorist techniques, the purpose of which is to keep those foreign troops in the country so that the conflict can continue?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, everybody should take note of the opinions being expressed by him. He opposed the military action, but I commend him for the approach that he has taken since, which recognises that we have to join together to secure a peaceful outcome for the people of Iraq. It is ironic, to say the least, that the terrorists say they are fighting the so-called occupation—it is not that—by the multinational forces when the only reason why those forces have to be there is to support the Iraqi people because of the insurgency.

Palestinian Authority

Simon Thomas: What assistance he is offering the Palestinian Authority during President Arafat's absence.

Jack Straw: In President Arafat's absence during his treatment in Paris, we have been in close touch with members of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied territories and in Paris. We will continue to support them and the Palestinian people through humanitarian aid, support to the World Bank trust fund and bilateral assistance projects on security.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has just said. While we all wish President Arafat and his family a peaceful end to his illness, we need to turn to the future. A time will come when there will be a need for new leadership in Palestine. What steps are being taken to ensure that Palestinians have robust democratic institutions that will ensure they are in control of their leadership and elect their own leader? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is the Government's position that the Palestinian people should decide their leadership?

Jack Straw: If I may correct what I think was a slip of the tongue, I think that the hon. Gentleman was expressing a hope for an immediate recovery for President Arafat rather than what he said. That is the fervent wish of all concerned.

Simon Thomas: indicated assent.

Jack Straw: So far as the hon. Gentleman's substantial point is concerned, the answer is yes. The organisation of Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority is a matter for them. Their Basic Law lays down a satisfactory process for elections, and it is for them to decide whether to follow that or to change it in an equally satisfactory way.

Mark Lazarowicz: What assurance is my right hon. Friend seeking from the Israeli Government that withdrawal from Gaza will be co-ordinated with the Palestinian Authority and that it will be the first step, not the last, to withdrawal from the occupied territories?

Jack Straw: The Israeli Government have described their withdrawal from Gaza, which we welcome as a necessary but not a sufficient step on the implementation of the road map, as a unilateral act. It is not being done in negotiation with the Palestinians. We have, however, urged the Israelis better to co-ordinate the withdrawal, and we have made clear our readiness to give active support to the Palestinian Authority to ensure that a vacuum is not created by the withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Force and that opportunities for the Palestinians to run their own affairs and their own security are properly taken up.

Francis Maude: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that assistance to the Palestinian Authority is focused especially on security measures to remove from the authority the excuse that has allowed it tacitly to tolerate the murderous attacks that have continued on Israeli citizens? If the authority wants the Israeli Government's unilateral action in withdrawing from Gaza and some west bank settlements to be extended, an abrupt end to such murderous attacks is absolutely essential.

Jack Straw: The burden of what the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely right. The Palestinian Authority has clear responsibilities better to control security and terrorism from within its own borders. A high proportion of our direct assistance from the UK to the Palestinian Authority is designed to strengthen its security and security apparatus.

Louise Ellman: Last week, I had discussions with senior Palestinian Ministers in Ramallah on a visit organised through Labour Friends of Israel. I saw for myself the value that Palestinians attach to British support. Is the Foreign Secretary concerned that the recent admission by Mr. Peter Hansen, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, that the UN employs members of Hamas, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will jeopardise the neutrality of the United Nations at this critical time?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, Hamas is a broad organisation whose military wing is banned under the Terrorism Act 2000, although its humanitarian wing is not. I know that that is the subject of great argument, especially in Israel. Constant allegations have been made against UNRWA because of its employment of individuals who claim some association with Hamas, but I have not yet seen any evidence that it has employed people who are involved in the military activities of Hamas. If there were such evidence, we would of course be gravely concerned.

Jenny Tonge: Despite the Foreign Secretary's response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), he must surely admit that the present situation is a wonderful opportunity for Israel to pursue the peace process in the middle east. Does he agree that Marwan Barghouti, who at present languishes in an Israeli jail, is much respected by Palestinians and, indeed, by many Israelis? Would the Foreign Secretary be prepared to put pressure on the Israeli authorities to release Mr. Barghouti from prison and encourage a free presidential election in Palestine?

Jack Straw: With respect, the present president of the Palestinian Authority is President Arafat. As far as the Government are concerned, we wish him a speedy recovery from his illness. Any succession is overwhelmingly a matter for the Palestinians.

Middle East

Wayne David: What initiatives are being taken to give new impetus to the middle east road map.

Jack Straw: With the US elections over, and with Prime Minister Sharon's plan for disengagement from Gaza, there is a powerful opportunity to give fresh and much needed impetus to the peace plan laid out in the road map. Mr. Sharon's proposals represent a necessary, though not sufficient, step towards the goal endorsed by the whole international community in Security Council resolution 1397: two states, a secure Israel and a viable state of Palestine.My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will discuss reviving the peace process with President Bush in Washington later this week. I hope to visit the region shortly.

Wayne David: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, especially his endorsement of the Sharon plan for disengagement. Does he agree that, alongside that agenda, it is important to consider the economic situation faced by many Palestinian people?

Jack Straw: Yes, I do. Security and economic recovery and development must go side by side. My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has already put some millions of euros into development in the Palestinian areas, and we are ready to do much more once there is a more secure environment.

Henry Bellingham: For the middle east road map to work, the Palestinian Authority will require substantial amounts of bilateral and other aid. Does he agree that it is vital that all the aid that has gone missing under Arafat's tenure is recovered?

Jack Straw: There have been repeated allegations of mismanagement of funds by the Palestinian Authority, but Commissioner Chris Patten, who has been responsible for the disbursement of EU funds to the Palestinians in the occupied territories for the past five years, has said repeatedly that he is satisfied about the destination of funds.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend be part of the process of reminding the re-elected US Administration that this President is the first to declare formally that the US is in favour of a Palestinian state? We did not see any real progress on this agenda in the last term, but now there is a real opportunity for progress. If the President can be reminded of his obligations, he could make a real difference in his second term.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. President Bush is the first US president to go to the United Nations to commit himself to a two-state solution and to sponsor a Security Council resolution laying that solution down as the policy of the UN. There is a great opportunity, and that is underlined by the courageous decision taken by Prime Minister Sharon, and followed through in the teeth of substantial opposition in his own party, to disengage from Gaza. We should commend Prime Minister Sharon for that. It is an important step on the road to full statehood for the Palestinians. We have to ensure that that works successfully and that there then is an equivalent process in respect of the west bank.

Ernie Ross: If my right hon. Friend does not mind, I will stop short of supporting him in his view of Prime Minister Sharon. I know Prime Minister Sharon slightly better than my right hon. Friend does, and I know of his activities in the past. However, it is very important that the road map gets back on track and that the Prime Minister takes with him the best wishes of the House. The whole of the middle east is looking to that meeting; the Prime Minister has staked a lot on it, and we hope that he comes back with something more than just promises: we need action on the road map. If the road map does not start, the whole middle east situation will become much more difficult.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fully understands the expectations on both sides of the House. I do not ask my hon. Friend for a general reference in respect of Prime Minister Sharon—he might be reluctant to provide one—but we should judge people by their actions. Whatever reservations there may be about other aspects of Prime Minister Sharon's very long career, I believe that he has shown considerable courage and statesmanship, and he should be commended for it. The only way to get a full state of Palestine is by withdrawal, and that can happen only on a phased basis, but to have the Israeli defence forces withdraw from 40 per cent. by population of the occupied territories is a very important start.

Gary Streeter: When the Prime Minister goes to Washington, will he make it clear that another conference on the middle east, although welcome, is not enough and that it is time, once the Palestinian leadership issues are resolved, to seek constructive action on the ground to bring the parties back to the road map, just as the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has said? Should that not include the appointment by the Quartet of a very senior international figure to stay in place in Jerusalem to oversee negotiations, backed by the presence of international monitoring and observer forces, and to help to foster a climate of trust? Is there not a unique opportunity for action now, and should we not seize it?

Jack Straw: I commend what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a case for the appointment of a high-level representative, but that representative must have something to do and all sides—the Palestinians, the Israelis and the neighbours who have a direct interest in the peace process and the road map—must have a clear willingness to engage.

Uganda

Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the prospects for peace in northern Uganda.

Chris Mullin: We welcome the statement made on 2 November by a senior member of the Lord's Resistance Army that it is prepared to end hostilities and enter into dialogue. We hope that that development will represent a start towards achieving a peaceful and sustainable end to the tragic conflict, but dialogue will not be easy in a conflict that has lasted 18 years.

Bob Blizzard: I am sure that all Members welcome that statement, but is my hon. Friend aware that the United Nations emergency relief co-ordinator, Jan Egeland, has said that there are more internally displaced people in northern Uganda than in the neighbouring Darfur region of Sudan, and that our own UN ambassador has acknowledged that northern Uganda is
	"one of the great crises out there which is not recognised enough".
	I appreciate all that my hon. Friend has done on this matter, but is there not the opportunity now more than ever before for the Government to raise their game even further and take their natural lead in a new international initiative to take advantage of the statement made by the Lord's Resistance Army?

Chris Mullin: I am well aware of the scale of the catastrophe in northern Uganda because, like many hon. Members, I have been there and seen it for myself. As I said to my hon. Friend when we discussed this issue last month, there is now scope for mild optimism: large numbers of followers of the Lord's Resistance Army are now coming out of the bush and being rehabilitated; some senior members of the LRA have been taking advantage of the amnesty that President Museveni has agreed; and the Sudanese, who have backed that dreadful, evil force in the past, withdrew their support for it some time ago. So, yes, there is an opportunity for a breakthrough and, yes, we are keeping very closely in touch with all the main parties. We will certainly do everything in our power to bring the conflict to an end. In the longer term, there will have to be reconciliation between the Government of President Museveni and the Acholi and Langi peoples in the north, who have been alienated by the events of the past 18 years.

Sudan

Andrew Robathan: If he will investigate whether members of the Sudanese Government are involved in ethnic cleansing and atrocities in Darfur.

Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had on respect for human rights in Darfur.

Chris Mullin: We remain gravely concerned by the human rights violations taking place in Darfur. We continue to make it clear to the Government of Sudan that they must respect the human rights of all their citizens and that there can be no impunity for such crimes. We are conveying the same message to the rebels. It will be for the United Nations international commission of inquiry, which began its work on 25 October, to investigate the situation in Darfur and determine who should be held accountable.

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that the Minister and I disagree much about this. There is the most terrible situation in Darfur; whether or not it is genocide, which the United Nations is investigating, is one thing, but certainly some 70,000 people have been killed and 1.5 million ethnically cleansed. The most terrible atrocities are taking place. It is important that there is no impunity, as the Minister said, and that responsibility is laid at the doors of those responsible. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to take tea with Bashir and his cronies last month, but the truth is that the Sudanese Government have armed and supported the Janjaweed. Will the Minister ensure that it is Government policy to hold the people who are responsible to account—and that starts with President Bashir and all his cronies?

Chris Mullin: As I said, it is our view that those responsible should be held to account. I am afraid that, in diplomacy, it is sometimes necessary to meet Governments with whom we do not see eye to eye on all matters. One of the main reasons the situation in Darfur has changed for the better—inasmuch as it has—is that the Sudanese Government have been left in no doubt about the international community's attitude to what has been going on. They have thus been willing to co-operate with the international community to bring the situation to an end.
	I would like to draw the House's attention to an aspect of the tragic situation that does not get the attention that it deserves. A growing feature of the problem is that the rebels are making more attacks on civilians, aid convoys and Government installations. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is saying that that is a small matter, but it is not. Mr. Pronk, the UN Secretary-General's representative, said the other day that in the past month the bigger problem had been attacks by rebels, not forces of the Sudanese Government. The rebels attacked Arab tribes that had not been drawn into the conflict. I assume that they did so with a view to drawing the tribes into the conflict, which is beginning to happen. There is a danger that the conflict will spread even wider, so the problem is serious.

Helen Jones: When does my hon. Friend expect the UN commission of inquiry to report on what has been happening in Darfur? Does he agree that, as reports have never yet saved a life, it will be the duty of the Government following the inquiry to press for immediate UN action, so that instead of debating the matter we can ensure proper protection for the people of Darfur and that those responsible for the atrocities are called to account?

Chris Mullin: The UN commission is due to report at the end of January, but no one is sitting and waiting for that. An enormous amount is being done both by the UN on the ground in Darfur and through the effort to get the African Union monitoring force in place. We will make a difference when we can provide security for the people on the ground, which is most likely to happen with the help of the African Union. We are doing all that we can to help it to get its troops in place.

John Bercow: Given that the African Union-sponsored peace talks in Abuja have stalled, principally because of the calculated obstructionism of the Government of Sudan in resisting the proposal for the establishment of a no-fly zone, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential both that a no-fly zone be erected in the interests of the people of Darfur and that that proposal must necessarily include a ban on military flights, for we all know that it is Government bombing that has been killing, slaughtering and maiming innocent black Africans in Darfur?

Chris Mullin: A number of issues are being discussed at the talks in Abuja, the main one being a ceasefire by both sides; the second is to agree a humanitarian protocol. A flight ban is under consideration, but, in a country the size of France, it would be relatively unenforceable. So far as I am aware, there have been no recent air attacks by Sudanese Government forces, so that is not the main problem. The main problem remains getting both sides to agree a ceasefire and then to sign up to the humanitarian protocol. I regret to say that, so far, that has not happened.

George Foulkes: But is it not true that British Ministers—both this Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development—have taken the lead in humanitarian and diplomatic initiatives in Darfur? What are the French, Germans, Italians, Canadians, Japanese and all the other OECD countries doing? Is it not about time that we said to some people, including Opposition Members, that it is not the responsibility of the British Government to deal with every crisis and problem in the world?

Chris Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, there has been a huge international effort in Darfur and it would be invidious of me to pick out individual countries, but we can hold our heads high because we have been in the lead and have arguably done more than anyone else. Many senior members of the Government, from the Prime Minister down, have taken a close personal interest in the situation and will continue to do so.

Mark Simmonds: Conservative Members are horrified by the atrocities, human rights crisis and human rights violations that are continuing in Darfur. We are also deeply concerned about the peace process in southern Sudan and urge the Government to play their part in reinvigorating the Intergovernmental Authority on Development talks.
	We recognise that the Government made a contribution by co-sponsoring UN resolution 1564, but further direct action is required, such as transforming the role of the African Union from monitoring to peacekeeping. What specific discussions have taken place with the Chinese to ensure a strong, multilateral resolution at the UN Security Council, leading to firm, immediate action? When will the Government agree with the US Administration and Conservative Members that events in Sudan are genocidal, thereby ensuring immediate international action?

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter fairly recently with the Chinese Foreign Minister, and there are constant discussions on the way forward in the United Nations between the representatives of all the countries on the Security Council. The hon. Gentleman mentioned progress in the Naivasha talks between the north and south. I understand that they are due to resume on 26 November. We are reasonably hopeful that there will be a successful outcome.

United States of America

Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on the UK's bilateral relations with the United States of America.

Denis MacShane: It has been a key foreign policy objective of this Government to maintain close co-operation and consultation with the United States Government and Congress, alongside a close and deepening relationship with our EU partners. That co-operation will continue. There is a huge range of issues on which progress in the world would be faster if Europe and the United States could agree.

Hugh Bayley: Britain's bilateral relations with the United States are important because hardly an issue of global policy—world trade talks, the global fight against AIDS or the fight against terrorism—can be resolved without America playing a leading role. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage the United States to use to the full its soft powers of diplomacy and development aid to tackle the problems, as well using as hard military force where necessary?

Denis MacShane: I very much agree. We should use our parliamentary soft power to build stronger links with the elected representatives of the American people on the Hill and in the state governments. In many states, quite progressive policies on environmental change and stem cell research have been adopted, and there is much more that is progressive and closer to our way of thinking in America than is sometimes reported. I therefore hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take part in deepening that interparliamentary dialogue.

Graham Brady: The French Foreign Minister has said that the European Union should become a power to rival the United States, and the Spanish Prime Minister has confirmed that the EU constitution would be an important step towards making the EU the world's strongest military power. Is it not increasingly obvious that moves towards a common EU foreign policy risk weakening the western alliance just when we should be strengthening it? Will the Minister take the opportunity to reassure the United States that this country wants no part in any attempts to undermine NATO and that we still regard our close relationship with America as the best guarantee of freedom in Europe?

Denis MacShane: I think that the hon. Gentleman was misquoting an article in German in Der Spiegel that included an interview with the Spanish Prime Minister—I will send him a translation. A new approach would be most helpful, because the Leader of the Opposition is unwelcome in Washington, unwanted in Europe and unelectable in Britain. The Conservative party needs to rebuild its fences with the United States, rebuild its connections with Europe and start talking sense on foreign policy for the first time in seven years.

Tony McWalter: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's positive remarks, would he raise in any talks about that relationship the issue of United States protectionism, particularly the fact that we cannot export anything that is to be used by the US Department of Defence without the US manufacturing the goods. There is therefore a strong protectionist factor, and I hope that that can be reviewed in the light of the new relationship that he spoke about.

Denis MacShane: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, as I represent Rotherham, where Europe's finest engineered steel products were threatened with tariffs imposed by the last Administration. I hope that the next Administration will not listen to some of their American trade union friends and go down the protectionist road. Isolationism, whether on the part of the Conservative party or whether in the form of protectionism by American unions, is unacceptable.

Iraq

Bob Spink: What recent representations he has received on the impending Iraq elections.

Bill Rammell: We have received numerous representations on the elections in Iraq, all of which support the holding of free and democratic elections in January. We fully support the Iraqi Interim Government in their commitment to that timing, as set out in UN Security Council resolution 1546. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, advised by the UN, is doing excellent work to ensure that technical preparations are on course for January.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Of course, we all want the elections in Iraq to be successful, and we acknowledge the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of the Black Watch in helping to create a stable and secure backdrop against which elections can be held. What further support is being considered for the Black Watch, and what plans are there to replace it in December so that Security Council resolution 1546 is delivered?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should have been about the elections.

Middle East

Richard Burden: What assessment he has made of the implications for the road map of the statement by Mr. Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Prime Minister Sharon, that the Gaza disengagement plan involves the removal of the creation of a Palestinian state from the peace process.

Bill Rammell: We believe the road map is the way forward and that disengagement is a first step towards a comprehensive peace settlement. Whatever rhetoric we may hear from either side, that is our goal and we shall stick to it. Prime Minister Sharon has reaffirmed Israel's commitment to the road map.

Richard Burden: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he accept that many people believe that Mr. Weisglass only put into words what is happening on the ground, including the news just this week of a threat to wells in Wadi Fukin in the west bank? Echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, I urge the Minister to ensure that when the Prime Minister meets President Bush he emphasises that the important thing is not words any more but action to make sure that peace is achieved for the benefit of both Israelis and Palestinians?

Bill Rammell: There is consensus across the House that we have the right way forward in the road map. What we need is renewed impetus and momentum, which is very much what the Prime Minister will be talking about when he goes to Washington later this week. In the context of what Mr. Weisglass said, it is important to note that his reported remarks are out of step with the policy of the Israeli Government. We strongly welcome the fact that Prime Minister Sharon has indicated that, and indicated his continuing commitment to the road map.

West Indies

Joan Ruddock: If he will make a statement on the progress of reconstruction in the West Indian islands damaged by recent hurricanes.

Bill Rammell: The recent hurricanes in the Caribbean caused extensive damage and destruction. The statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made to the House on 12 October gave details of what this Government have done to help. Since then, we have announced a further £5.5 million in assistance to Grenada, the island most severely affected. Baroness Howells visited Grenada as the personal envoy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and our assistance to the region now amounts to almost £10 million.

Joan Ruddock: I am sure that the whole House will be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he congratulate the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust in my constituency, which, like many Caribbean communities across London, is raising funds for the Grenada hurricane appeal? Will he also tell us what plans the Government have to assist the islands of the West Indies in preparing better to avoid such tragedies in future, when there may, unfortunately, be further hurricanes?

Bill Rammell: I should certainly like to congratulate the trust in my hon. Friend's constituency on the work that it is doing. Bearing in mind that this hurricane season has been the worst for some 90 years, it is critical that we do everything we can to find out what factors created that situation and what we can do to help. That is at the forefront of our thinking at the moment.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: As the House will know, this Thursday is 11 November, Remembrance day. Although the House will not be sitting at 11 o'clock, right hon. and hon. Members, their staff and officials in the House will be attending to their duties at that time. I regard it as appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence at that time, so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help to preserve our democratic freedom. I should be grateful if those responsible for chairing Committees would make appropriate arrangements. Instructions will also be issued to heads of Department so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence should be enabled to do so.

Police Reform

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future of the police service in England and Wales.
	I am publishing today the second phase of our police reform agenda. This is an agenda designed to restore community policing for the modern age. Our proposals embody reform for a purpose: to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour; to build safer and more secure communities; to reinforce respect for the law; to protect law-abiding citizens; and to provide a customer-focused service using modern technology to underpin neighbourhood policing.
	I wish to place on record the debt of gratitude that we owe to the men and women of the police service—their job is always challenging and sometimes dangerous. Police officers, support staff, volunteers and now the new police community support officers have our full support.
	I believe that we are all committed to a more responsive, visible and reassuring presence on our streets, but rapid economic and social change bring their own challenges. The nature of crime has changed. Success in one area highlights new forms of criminality, unacceptable behaviour and the breakdown of respect. The service itself is prepared and willing to embrace change while maintaining the enduring values of the British police service—values that must be sustained, and which include integrity, a commitment to public service and a professionalism free of party political interference. Those who denigrate the achievements of the police in reducing crime downplay the commitment and professionalism of those officers who have helped to achieve the 30 per cent. reduction in overall crime since 1997; the use of enforcement powers that have led to 100,000 cases of antisocial behaviour being tackled in the past year alone; burglary and vehicle crime reduced by two fifths; and robbery down by a quarter in the past two years alone.
	Police numbers are at an all-time high, with 140,000 officers, 68,000 police staff and more than 4,000 police community support officers, which is the result of an uplift in the overall police work force of more than 31,000 over the past seven years. For the new neighbourhood teams to work, however, we must free up police time. We need to cut bureaucracy, reinforce civilianisation and use forensic science to underpin the application of additional resources, which is why we have revised the codes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, cut performance indicators and reduced the number of forms used by the service by more than 7,000. Video identity parades now make up more than 98 per cent. of all identity parades. We have reformed the criminal justice system, introduced easy-to-use fixed penalty notices and reduced unnecessary time in the station and the courts.
	The public rightly demand more police, more support officers, more investment and more visible and available policing in the neighbourhood. From prevention through investigation and detection, the public require both action and results. The approach that I am setting out today seeks to address those challenges in partnership with the police.
	The new neighbourhood policing fund will invest in dedicated teams across the country, in addition to the forthcoming uplift in the police grant. Fully trained officers with updated powers and police community support officers, who have core powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, will help to meet our goals. Those neighbourhood teams will clearly require a tailored approach to the particular needs of urban and rural areas.
	The investment of £50 million of new money this autumn will deliver 2,000 police community support officers this financial year, as a first step to achieving the 25,000 uplift to which we are committed. The fund will ensure that, unlike in the past, we do not see a reduction in the 140,000 officers—instead, reductions in bureaucracy will free up the equivalent of 12,000 front-line constables. However, first contact with the police—whether on the street or on the phone—is crucial, and the response and follow-up to reported crime and the treatment of victims and witnesses must improve dramatically.
	In the next two years, we will guarantee standards of public service by introducing, together with an appropriate assessment of public satisfaction, a new contract. The new contract will include national minimum standards for call handling, a new three-digit non-emergency number and new guarantees on information for victims, which will reinforce the customer contract. That is part of the 10 commitments to improved public service that are set out in the White Paper.
	Where inaction over a period of time has led to disillusionment and frustration, we will work with chief officers and others to set in place credible mechanisms for triggering action. Local people, through their local councillor, will have new powers to require information, appropriate consultation and, where appropriate, action. Councillors or community safety officers employed by the community safety partnerships will be encouraged to focus on acting as a liaison or advocate, providing a better link between the police and the community. That will be supplemented by new channels for local people to influence policing priorities in their neighbourhood. There will be a lighter touch and longer breaks between inspections for the best performing services and the co-ordination of visits by different agencies will be improved. Improved performance will lead to greater freedom from monitoring through earned autonomy.
	However, the police are not solely responsible for cutting crime, which is why we are reviewing the partnership provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and will publish a community safety strategy early in the new year. Investment in tackling drug abuse must be co-ordinated by local partnerships and the improvements we seek in accountability will assist by inculcating collaboration into mainstream practice.
	Police authorities, which will now have enhanced local democratic representation, must increase their community links. Clearer responsibilities must lead to greater visibility and greater accountability. These enhanced powers will include: holding chief constables to account; setting clear performance objectives; conducting appraisals; overseeing engagement with the public at neighbourhood and command unit level; for the first time, a duty to promote diversity within the force; and greater consistency of response and performance in its area. Moreover, I am clear that central Government have to clarify their role in relation to what is described as the tripartite decision-making process.
	Nationally, it is the duty of Government to set the strategic framework and to be prepared to stand back and let chief officers and police authorities deliver the service. That will be achieved through a slimmed down national policing plan and a rationalisation of centrally accountable agencies. The Government are responsible for providing resources and powers: they must also provide a focus on improved quality of service, consistency and coherence through a better focused inspection system; clarity about powers of intervention where police authorities, as well as forces, are functioning badly; and support where necessary.
	The role of the Home Secretary must be more than simply distributing taxpayers' money. Where local communities are failed, action must be forthcoming. This Home Secretary will not duck the duty to act where necessary. Ministers carry responsibility, but with responsibility must come the power to act—responsibility without power is as corrupting of democracy as power without responsibility.
	In addition to reform at local, force and national level, we are, as the House knows, establishing the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The rationalisation of organisations working to tackle criminality at this level has been widely welcomed. Similarly, it is now necessary to subsume the functions of the different policing agencies at national level into a new national policing improvement agency, which will embed a culture of self-improvement and customer service.
	Work is now being led by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to determine how best the service can work across boundaries in handling more serious and sophisticated crime. The chief inspector will report in the early new year on how force structures can best be configured to improve effectiveness.
	However, it is not structures but the men and women of the police service who will deliver the more visible, accessible and accountable service we seek. They will have our full support, through improved training, enhanced powers and the right technology, in taking on the new role that they play in the rapidly changing world of today. Through the 10 commitments to the service, we are setting out how we can offer a unified work force, recognising the contribution of all.
	The constable will remain central to policing. Constable numbers are at a record level. We will develop their lead role in the new neighbourhood teams. Probationer training will be family friendly, and every officer will now obtain a transferable qualification. Promotion will depend less on examinations and more on performance on the job. Career pathways will be more clearly defined and the role of police staff will be enhanced. People with the right skills will be able to enter the service above the rank of constable.
	Good leadership and management, together with the spread of best practice, will be complemented by the work of the police standards unit, which has already had a dramatic impact on the performance of forces with which it has been working.
	This is a broad and ambitious agenda. We are committed to working with and alongside the police service to build a better service for the future—a service appropriate to the 21st century. I commend the statement to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of the statement and the White Paper and join him in commending the men and women of our police forces who work so hard, often against the odds.
	We agree with elements of the White Paper. I welcome the introduction of a national IT system for sharing national police intelligence; it is long overdue. I welcome the fact that police authorities will be given power to request an intervention from the inspectorate, and the Home Secretary's acceptance of Conservative party policies on the need for greater accountability of police authorities—although the proposals do not go far enough.
	We are considering the latest in a long line of initiatives on police reform from the Home Secretary. In March 2001, he established a police reform steering group. In December 2001, we had a police reform White Paper, which was followed the next month by the Police Reform Bill. At the end of last year, there was another Green Paper and now we have a White Paper with green edges. The Home Office has just finished consulting about modernising police powers to meet community needs and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is reviewing the structure of our police forces. We shall end up with a reform of a reform of a reform.
	Our police forces are already buried in Home Office initiatives. So what is proposed? It is another set of initiatives. The Home Secretary undertakes to cut bureaucracy. Like most of the contents of the White Paper, we have heard it all before. Back in 1997, the Labour party manifesto stated:
	"We will relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat."
	We must ask why, seven years and four or five police reform initiatives later, there are still unnecessary burdens and forms to remove or scrap.
	The main reason for the mountain of red tape is the Government's obsession with control. The police are fed up with the Government's constant central control— the targets, initiatives, priorities, inspections, checks, audits and ring-fenced funding. One force reported 37 inspections, audits or checks in 12 months. The Government believe that measurement is a substitute for action. We learn from the head of the police standards unit that one of the bureaucracy-busting initiatives that the Government require is for each force to have a bureaucracy officer. What does he do? He measures bureaucracy. The Home Secretary says that cutting police paperwork will free up 12,000 police officers. Again, I am glad that he agrees with Tory policy—the question is whether he can deliver it.
	As usual, the Home Secretary has tried to claim that crime is down, based on a survey that misses out murder, drug crime, shoplifting, crimes against children—millions of crimes. It does not matter how the Government try to spin the figures: overall, crimes have increased by more than 750,000 since 1997; violent crime has spiralled out of control—there are more than 1 million incidents a year; gun crime has doubled, and sex offences and drug crime have increased.
	When the Home Secretary launched the original police reform White Paper, he said that detection rates were far too low—yet now they are worse. Overall detection rates have decreased by a fifth since 1997. In 1997, almost eight out of 10 cases of violence against the person were detected. That figure is now down to half—a mere 50 per cent. Even more disgraceful, detection of sexual offences has dropped from 77 per cent. to 39 per cent. The figure has been halved since the Government came to power.
	The detection rate is the single most important issue that faces the police today. The White Paper mentions it but offers no new solution. The Home Secretary is keen on targets. His target for detection rates in 2008 is to get them back to 30 per cent. In other words, he is planning for a performance that lets seven out of 10 criminals go free. Even his inspector of constabulary accepts that that is not good enough.
	Let us take just one example. The Home Secretary has announced today that, ahead of any proper independent evaluation, he will empower all forces to give community support officers the power of detention. Has the Home Secretary seen the research by Leeds university, which not only called for the Government to slow their rapid expansion of CSOs but warned that their proliferation was
	"undermining the traditional bonds between officers and their communities"?
	Surely, instead of spending £50 million on recruiting 2,000 CSOs, it would be better to have 1,000 fully trained police officers.
	I share the disappointment of the police, including many chief constables, in this White Paper. The police service today is by no means perfect, but when it has its hands tied behind its back—from funding decisions to form filling—it is hardly surprising that reform has been slow. There is nothing new or radical in this paper. All is open to consultation, and the reforms will take years to happen. I fear that the Home Secretary has come to the House today for little more than a taxpayer-funded public relations exercise in the run-up to the general election. If the Government were intent on dealing with crime, they would give the police the numbers, the time and the ability to deter and detect criminal activity. There is precious little in this White Paper to reassure our concerned and committed police forces or to inspire the confidence of the worried citizens of our country.

David Blunkett: The first question that the right hon. Gentleman asked was whether we agreed with Tory party policy. The answer is no, we do not, because it was about cutting police numbers and involved a 50 per cent. increase in crime in the 18 years that the Tory Government were in office. It also involved using the British crime survey, but setting it on one side when it did not suit them, as they are now doing once again.
	The right hon. Gentleman's second question was whether we agreed that it would be a good idea to reduce bureaucracy and get more police on to the streets. The answer to that is yes, we do agree. That is why we have increased the police force by 13,000 since 1997—by 10,000 over the past two years alone—and why there have been 4,000 extra police community support officers and 31,000-plus staff overall during those years. It is also why we are now reducing bureaucracy.
	The right hon. Gentleman then asked why we should have a bureaucracy-busting officer in each force. The answer to that question is, to bust bureaucracy. There should be someone whose focus and objective is to examine the pluralicity of forms that exist at local level, and to determine what can be done about that. At last, that is beginning to work, hence the 7,700 forms that have been set aside nationally and locally over the past two years.
	The right hon. Gentleman next asked whether we agreed with ourselves that crime was actually falling. Yes, we do. Burglary and vehicle crime are down by more than 40 per cent. Those are year-on-year comparable figures, comparing like with like. Do we agree with some survey at Leeds university that says that police community support officers are a bad thing? No, we do not. I went to Bexley this morning with the Prime Minister and saw community support officers working alongside the new neighbourhood policing team, led by the award-winning police constable, Michael Wearing. What a tremendous example that was of those officers working alongside the community. There has been a massive decrease in crime and a tremendous uplift in reassurance, and these are just the kind of neighbourhood policing teams that we want to see right across the country over the next three years, putting in place neighbourhood reassurance, detecting and dealing with crime, catching criminals, reducing the fear of crime and ensuring that we can get more resources into the police force.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about resources. He asked about time and about fixed penalty notices. The 20,000 that have been issued in the first experimental period have reduced the time needed to take people down to the station to go through the arrest procedures and all the various case and custody processes by one and a half hours on average, and by substantially more in many cases. Yes, additional resources will be necessary, both from the new neighbourhood policing fund and from the uplift that we shall give to the police authorities in the forthcoming police grant.
	Of course it will also be necessary to ensure that those resources are used wisely. We have had an uplift in funding of 30 per cent. over the past four years. We will ensure that no police force in the country will be required to cut its services over the year ahead, and that, instead, forces will maintain those police numbers and draw down on the national policing fund for additional community support officers so that they can do their job in the community. Above all, they will do that job alongside local people, with that customer focus and fulfilling that contract, so that when people phone or contact the service they are dealt with professionally, politely and properly and know what is taking place after they have reported the crime. Victims will be followed up with information and we will mobilise the community on behalf of the police.
	If the White Paper did not include proposals on all those issues, we would have failed. But it does, and when people have read it they will realise that we have unified an agenda for the future with the police force. The first police reform White Paper and Bill involved a past agenda that the Conservative Government had failed to fulfil on the back of the Sheehy report. Ten years later, it was my job to put that in place. Now, however, we are moving forward into a different era in the 21st century, with the chief constables, the superintendents, the Police Federation—I believe—and, above all, the public behind us. It is simply untrue to say that chief constables are not signed up to this White Paper, because they are. They are signed up to it because they want a radical, delivering police force that has the support of the public and is sufficiently reformed to deal with the new challenges. They want that because they are committed to reducing crime and ensuring that we have a safer Britain. We should all be proud of that.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement and also of the White Paper. We welcome many parts of the proposals in that document. He is right to want to find ways of building much closer links between the public and the police, and I am glad that he has rejected the more simplistic approach of having either directly elected sheriffs or directly elected police authorities.
	Does the Home Secretary acknowledge, however, that a barrier to more local policing is the amount of time that the police still have to spend on administrative tasks? I acknowledge that he has made some progress in that regard, but is that not just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tackling paperwork? Does he have any specific plans to tackle the amount of police time wasted in court appearances, when officers are often not called or have to wait ages to give evidence?
	The Home Secretary says that he can free up the equivalent of 12,000 constables by cutting bureaucracy. Is that not an admission that under Labour—with its obsession with targets—the Government have actually tied up those 12,000 police officers in the first place? I welcome his plans to allow people to join the police at higher ranks, without always having to serve in the junior ranks first. Does he envisage this opportunity being available to people who have had business careers, or just to those who have had related careers?
	The Home Secretary will also know that many people in rural communities feel that their police are being drawn into the city centres. What guarantee can he give under these proposals about local police levels in communities that feel that they are missing out in this way? In the White Paper, he says that he will seek a financial contribution from the drinks industry towards the cost of the harm caused by excessive drinking. Would he extend that to imposing a levy on late-night venues, to help with the cost of policing our city centres?
	There are many good ideas in the White Paper, but will the Home Secretary explain exactly how they are going to be funded, particularly given the recent concern that police authorities have expressed over their settlement? Will these changes result in higher council tax bills, or will they be fully resourced from the Home Office?

David Blunkett: I am very grateful for what I take to be the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the White Paper and for his sensible questions. Yes, our work on overturning bureaucracy does represent only the tip of the iceberg, which is why we are investing in technology such as Livescan, and why simple technology such as pagers and mobile phones should be used to avoid officers having to sit in court day after day without being called, when they are needed elsewhere. A lot of this is simple common sense. A new case and custody programme has now been introduced in 11 force areas, and we can now streamline the reporting of crime on the spot using the Airwave system, rather than requiring officers to return to the station. All these things, plus the effort being made nationally and locally to reduce paperwork, will make a difference. I do not accept that the 12,000 officers who will be freed up is a consequence of engaging 12,000 officers in the stations.
	An interesting statistic is that we had 37,000 fewer constables 30 years ago than today, but more people saw them and believed them to be visible and available on the street. We must return to that era. In conjunction with police services, we must be able to ensure that people are released from sitting around in the station, which is why, three years ago, we started the process relating to the diary of a police officer.
	I said that community policing in rural areas needed to be tailored to particular needs. Experiments are currently taking place using community support officers in rural areas, where there is less crime and fewer dangers, to substitute for police, thereby releasing police officers to engage in community policing in new ways. The local police service itself must tailor that approach to its area, as we cannot do it from the centre. By ensuring that we use the two aspects of policing—constables and support officers—we can do a better job.
	On spending and the police grant, police authorities believed that they were to get a 3 per cent. uplift. On that basis, they have been lobbying that that is insufficient for them to meet the future demands of the service and they have been demanding 5.7 per cent. Let me make it clear: there is no way that I can deliver a 5.7 per cent. uplift across the board, and I do not believe that the police authorities truly believe that that is feasible. However, I will make sure, along with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, that the uplift that we deliver in a few weeks will ensure that the programme that we have set out, and its supplementing in the years ahead, will deliver the neighbourhood beat police officers and the 25,000 support officers to which we have committed. On that basis, we will have the trust of the British people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that I am calling Back Benchers, I limit them to one supplementary question each.

Jeff Ennis: I welcome today's announcement of the White Paper, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent visit to Grimethorpe, not Grimesthorpe, in my constituency, where we met representatives of the local police team and representatives of the local community, and where neighbourhood policing is now making a difference in terms of reducing crime. While we were there, we met a number of community support officers, who felt that their role could be beefed up to include, for example, use of the power of detention and so on. Will he reassure the House that the Government are looking to beef up the role of CSOs under the White Paper?

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that I received in Grimethorpe. It was an interesting afternoon, with the community being part of the solution—

Dennis Skinner: Grimesthorpe is in "Brassed Off".

David Blunkett: Yes, I know. I have wanted to heckle my hon. Friend ever since he started to mumble away when I was making my statement, for which I will get him afterwards.

Dennis Skinner: I was supporting my right hon. Friend.

David Blunkett: Well, I refrain from using a more robust term in reply—I will save that for interviews on radio.
	I reassure my hon. Friends that chief constables will have the power to designate detention powers to community support officers, but we will leave that to individual chief officers rather than impose it from above. They will of course automatically have powers for levying fixed penalty notices and requiring information such as names and addresses.

Bob Spink: How do we empower decent local residents? What information on local policing will be provided to each household, and how will it be distributed?

David Blunkett: That will be part of the joint role envisaged for community safety partnerships. If we are to reduce bureaucracy, it is important that we do not duplicate and ask police to issue paperwork to the communities that they serve. Local authorities and community safety partnerships will work together to provide regular updates to local people. They will provide, in writing, information on where the local police service can be located; the numbers on which officers can obtained and, when we have a three-digit reserve number, a record of that number. They will ensure that local people know where local community panels and forums are being held and know how they can contribute to them. Where there is considerable disquiet, we need to inform people how they can take action under the new trigger powers to require consultation. In extremis, where things have gone very badly wrong, we need to tell local people how they might trigger snap inspections. The obligation to provide such information will be overseen by police authorities, which, regrettably, are little known by the public at the moment—on recent polling, about 80 per cent. of people had never heard of their police authority. That must be a thing of the past if decentralisation is to work in the way that I have spelled out in my statement.

James Purnell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wardens should play a key part in the police family? Will he thank the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety for visiting Tameside to see our model of neighbourhood policing? Does he agree that we need to speed up the process of accrediting wardens where they are working hand in hand with the police? Should not that be the job of the local division commander rather than the chief constable?

David Blunkett: In those circumstances, it can be, and where forces and man and woman power can be combined so that the job can be done better, that is welcome. The local commander, with the chief constable, will therefore be in a position to agree those designations. In some areas, wardens have decided to upgrade to community support officers, which is welcome. Some local authorities, regeneration partnerships and new deal for communities areas have been co-funding the appointment of officers, police community support officers and wardens. That is very welcome, and we will examine in future how local co-funding can play a more important role in expanding the service.

Derek Conway: Did the Home Secretary discover this morning, when he and the Prime Minister were in Falconwood in my constituency pulling their little public relations stunt, that one of the reasons the public do not believe his figures is that they see what is happening on the ground? One of the problems in the Metropolitan police area is that those officers notionally allocated to the Bexley division, which he and his chum visited this morning, are consistently taken away for central force duties. Whatever he says at the Dispatch Box today about the figures, my constituents know that it is not happening on the ground, with or without the presence of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.

David Blunkett: What a terrible denigration of the police officers and community support officers whom I met this morning. What a denigration of the work of the community. Do not take my word for what I and the Prime Minister saw this morning—I ask any journalist or broadcaster listening or viewing this afternoon to go to where we were this morning, and to talk to local people, the head of the community arts college, local police constables and community support officers—then call them a liar, not me.

Graham Allen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on continuing to be tough on crime, but may I also remind him that he needs to be equally tough on the causes of crime? We could have a uniformed officer on every street corner, but unless we tackle effective parenting so that young people have the proper values, it would still have little impact on crime. In his previous job as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I know that that matter concerned him. Will he also take cognizance of the fact that arresting officers are spending hours in the police station progress-chasing case papers through to charge? If he is able to solve that problem, he could increase the number of hours spent by the average police officer on other duties by 25 per cent? Will he take that seriously?

David Blunkett: That is a critical point, and the civilianisation of the force, and better use of technology alongside it, will help. Reconfiguring what takes place in the station, and how custody and management work at that level, is a major issue, and our investment of more than £1 billion in information technology is part of that. As I discovered when I was in Nottingham at the end of last week with the ministerial team, parenting is absolutely crucial, not merely in terms of building discipline but in terms of re-inventing and reinforcing respect within the family and in the community that we serve.

Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman referred to diversity. I wonder how far that principle has been extended throughout all police authorities in dealing with folk with disabilities, both in relation to recruiting people who could do good police duties but who have certain impairments, and retaining and caring for those in the police service who are disabled. For example, I still think of that picture of the Royal Ulster Constabulary collator receiving the George cross who had no nether limbs because they had been blown off. It seems to me that, at times, we lose folk who could do excellent police work because of our standards in relation to disability.

David Blunkett: I am pleased to say that I agree. A review is taking place, with the police service, of requirements that should no longer apply owing to improvements in medical technology and people's ability to cope. The new fitness test recognises the crucial role of women police officers. While maintaining reasonable standards, we must be able to welcome people who would otherwise have been excluded.

Chris Ruane: I am pleased about the review of the partnership provision of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I believe that a lack of co-operation is the main reason for the underperformance of crime and disorder partnerships. Will my right hon. Friend consult Members in all parts of the House who have a worm's eye view—[Laughter.] I mean a view from the ground, of course. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when we conduct the review there is input on this important issue from all sides of the Chamber?

David Blunkett: I will take on board what my hon. Friend has said, but I think it would be unparliamentary for me to describe any hon. Member as a worm.

Eric Forth: Following the question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), will the Home Secretary tell us exactly what he proposes to do to reduce the current complexity? Police officers trying to do their job on the ground are faced with an enormous bureaucratic nightmare when they take someone to the station. What precisely will the Home Secretary do to free up police officers?

David Blunkett: I withdraw my earlier reassurance that I would not call any hon. Member the name mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
	First, we are introducing a hotline so that officers themselves can telephone anonymously—or, if they wish, give their names—to get something done about that bureaucracy. Secondly, we introduced someone with responsibility at force level—a move condemned earlier by the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—precisely to secure action at that level. Thirdly, the whole point of civilianisation is to enable officers to leave the station and return to the community. That is working extremely well: there has been an immediate release of police time and, above all, a new morale in the service. We are beginning to see that everywhere we go.

Tony Clarke: Notwithstanding the antisocial behaviour displayed by some Conservative Members, may I warmly congratulate the Home Secretary on his statement? I especially welcomed the emphasis that he placed on the roles and responsibilities of individual police officers.
	When talking of the extended police family, my right hon. Friend mentioned community support officers and neighbourhood wardens. Will he now comment on the role of the special constabulary? We are experiencing record levels of recruitment in Northamptonshire: more than 300 special constables are doing valuable work in the community. Will my right hon. Friend consider the role that they can play in the neighbourhood teams that he is setting up? Many special constables would welcome the opportunity to act as parish or neighbourhood constables, and to play a full part in those teams.

David Blunkett: That is an excellent idea. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a special constable—the only person among us who can go out on Saturdays and Sundays and do that imaginative job for his constituents. [Interruption.] I should say that he is the only Labour Member present today who is able to do that, although I appreciate that there are people doing other things in other ways.
	It is crucial for us to build on the 21 force areas that have increased their numbers of special constables over the past year. In the east midlands last week, I noted that not only Northamptonshire but Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire had dramatically increased their numbers. That is one way in which the creation of a citizenship community—the development of a civil society—can be used to establish greater safety in the community while helping those at work. It demonstrates how those two processes can be combined.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary take the opportunity provided by his reforms to simplify the structure between the Home Office and local people, so that there can be one pot of money for each local area and local authorities and police can decide on priorities in consultation with the people, rather than there being numerous different strands and funding streams as there are now?

David Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the policing and crime reduction agenda. I experienced déjà vu for a moment.
	Again, I am pleased to say that I agree. The Home Office has now reached 21 local area agreements involving unified funding streams, and is experimenting with the idea of having just one person in the Department to contact and work with. That makes much more sense than the multiplicity of individual sections and divisions with which people have been having to deal.

Eric Illsley: I welcome the proposal for neighbourhood policing teams. As my right hon. Friend knows, they have been successful in the Barnsley area. He may also know that in South Yorkshire we have a problem with the communication centre, which I understand is based in his constituency. Will he do what he can to improve the situation? Will he ensure that it is not repeated elsewhere when he introduces minimum standards for call handling?

David Blunkett: I entirely take the point. Thankfully the centre is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), but I think we have all suffered as a result of the tremendous hiccup that occurred when the new facility was brought into play. Despite the best intentions, there has been a major problem. We must avoid a repetition of that as new technology is introduced throughout the country.
	The point raises a wider issue—the need for expertise to be shared locally and regionally in regard to activity that has not been seen as a core police function in the past, and in which senior officers have no historic expertise. We must do that to ensure that people receive the service that they need, but above all to ensure that the police themselves are not frustrated by what lies between the public and their own role as enforcement agencies. They have been as angry and upset about what that means to them as the public have been about the service they have been receiving.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Home Secretary aware that, as a result of his policies, the Norfolk constabulary is spending roughly half a million pounds on the diversity agenda? Does that make sense? Is it money well spent, especially in a county where ethnic minorities represent 1 per cent. of the population and where there have been no instances of police discrimination?

David Blunkett: Yes, it does. Diversity takes many forms, and is intended to reflect the wider community, not just ethnicity. A vital synergy is involved in getting the reflection of the community right in the forces. We need diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, religion and gender; we also need to deliver services better to the local community. Of course that must be tailored to the community's specific needs, but to suggest that spending resources on improving diversity is a waste of money is to demonstrate that, regrettably, Conservative Members live way back in the past—and will remain there if they do not understand the difference between 21st-century Britain and the 18th-century Britain in which the Tory party was born.

Anne Campbell: I welcome the transformation that has taken place in community policing over the past few years, particularly in my constituency, where the police now use e-mail lists to keep residents informed of what is happening. But given his plan to increase local authorities' powers in regard to community safety, will my right hon. Friend advise those of us who must deal with Liberal-Democrat controlled authorities, Liberal Democrats who do not support the antisocial behaviour legislation and Liberal Democrat councillors who have stated publicly that they have no confidence in the police?

David Blunkett: The new trigger powers mean power for local people. As in the case of ombudsman services, it will be necessary to use elected representatives as a filter. If people found that their local councillors were unable to co-operate with them in the improvement of service, they could of course turn to the ballot box to ensure that their future representatives did just that.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary tell us what will be the budget of a national policing improvement agency?

David Blunkett: The agency will drive best practice. It will bring together the National Centre for Policing Excellence and Centrex, the centre for training excellence. [Interruption.] It will bring together the relevant functions of the Police Information Technology Organisation, and will allow collaboration in slimming down the administration required to perform those functions while also focusing attention on improved service on the ground. Far from mumbling about it, the main Opposition should surely welcome that rationalisation, given that they are always going on about rationalising and cutting bureaucracy. Once we have taken that step, we might actually get some credit for it.

Chris Bryant: The people of the Rhondda are delighted to have five community safety officers, and they will be even more delighted when they get the additional 33 whom, according to my calculations, the spreading of 25,000 such officers across 659 constituencies will provide. But they are particularly concerned that when they telephone the police, their call often seems to disappear into the wide blue yonder and they never hear from anybody again. Is it not important to allow local people to choose for themselves whether their call is an urgent, 999 call, or one that could be dealt with through a visit the next day or even later in the week? Should we not have another telephone number for the police?

David Blunkett: We should have a three-digit back-up number, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) outlined, in future we should use e-mail to report incidents and to report back on the action to be taken. In Lancashire, once a clear system of reporting back was established and people were then confident that the promise made would be fulfilled, there was a 10 per cent. improvement in confidence in the police. I would like to see that replicated across the country.

Roger Williams: In the next couple of weeks, chief constables and police authorities will have to deal with settlements that some would call challenging but most would call inadequate. The Home Secretary has a reputation for driving through national initiatives that do not carry with them sufficient central funding, which leads to an increased burden on council tax payers. Will he confirm today that his proposals will be fully funded, and that the poorest in society will not carry the biggest burden for police services?

David Blunkett: I do not think that the poorest in society do carry the burden for funding police services. I obviously cannot announce what the lift will be, but it certainly will not be at the level predicted by the police authorities themselves. What is absolutely clear is that the resources that we are making available will enable the continuing development of the service. Yes, we will fully fund those areas in which we are responsible directly, just as we are providing 100 per cent. funding over the next 12 months for 2,000 additional community support officers, and for the additional CSOs who will be part of the new national policing fund, which I will announce later.

Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for community support officers and street patrols to have the power to require information from—and, where necessary, to detain—members of the public while the police are called? For example, how can Clapham Junction's street patrol—sadly, Wandsworth council is going to disband it in March, when Government funding runs out—deal with offences such as those committed by graffiti artists and fly-tippers if it does not have the power to require information?

David Blunkett: Those who are designated police community support officers will obviously have fixed penalty notice powers available to them as of now, and as I have said, the power to detain will be a matter for chief police officers to decide. But I deplore the fact that Wandsworth council is pulling the plug on the resources that are available to continue a scheme that I know, having been in the locality, remains a great success. I appeal to local authorities to work in partnership with the police to maintain those resources, and to continue the excellent work of pursuing community safety as a common goal for everyone at local level.

Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State did not even attempt to address the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), so may I try a different tack? How many officers will it take to run the national policing improvement agency?

David Blunkett: Substantially fewer than currently operate the National Centre for Policing Excellence, Centrex and the Police Information Technology Organisation; indeed, that is the purpose of putting the agencies together. The reason we do not have a figure is that we are reconfiguring the service—[Interruption.] The boys in short trousers, as of recent months, always want to predict that amalgamation, collaboration and rationalisation will somehow be a disaster, but most people in business and in the community know that putting these organisations together will slim down overheads and remove unnecessary administration, thereby enabling the spending of additional resources on front-line policing.

Huw Edwards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and I can assure him that the four chief constables who recently gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee offered full support for the Government's strategic approach to policing; I can also assure him that South Wales police expressed considerable support for the 24 community support officers whom we met. In a rural area such as mine, CSOs have to serve an enormous patch covering some 18 or 20 miles, and the additional CSOs will be greatly welcomed, especially in areas such Abergavenny and Monmouth, in which there has been a particular problem with alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour.

David Blunkett: Yes, they will make a substantial contribution, as will the other antisocial behaviour measures that have been widely welcomed, including the combining of powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and in fireworks regulations. This has once and for all given the lie to the idea that such measures are a gimmick that will never work. In the past month, communities throughout England and Wales have benefited from them, and any Member of this House who tries to demonstrate otherwise is not in touch with their local neighbourhood.

NOTHING

NOTHING

Points of Order

Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that there is a long-standing courtesy and convention in the House whereby a Member of Parliament who intends to visit the constituency of another MP lets them know of their intention? May I draw to your attention the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary were in my constituency this morning, but they did not exercise a courtesy that I understood applied to the most exalted Members of this Chamber, as well as to we lowly Back Benchers?

Mr. Speaker: We are all equal in this matter, and regardless of whether it is the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or any other Cabinet Minister, the usual conventions must apply when they visit a constituency. I expect that convention to be abided by.

Tony McWalter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of a point of order concerning the relationship between this House and the press lobby. I would like to clarify whether it is possible to withdraw a press pass from a member of that lobby, particularly if they have shown contempt for all Members of this House. In this Sunday's edition of The Sunday Times, a journalist said:
	"Britain is being overrun by politicians. It has more of the vermin per acre than just about any major democracy."
	Does someone who treats Members of this House in that way and who thinks of us in that manner have any right to a pass to attend our proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the standards of the journalist concerned certainly did leave a lot to be desired. As the hon. Gentleman said, he gave me notice of this point of order and I have made inquiries. That individual, fortunately, is not a Press Gallery passholder. He should follow the good example of such passholders, who work night and day to enhance our good reputation and always write about hon. Members—including me—in the kindest possible terms.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us what newspapers you read?

Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into that one.

Corporate Nuisance Telephone Calls

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an offence in respect of corporate nuisance telephone calls.
	Mr. Speaker, you, in common with many hon. Members and their constituents—and, indeed, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—may occasionally have answered the telephone only to be confronted with a silent call. If it has happened to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to other hon. Members in their places today, that would hardly be surprising, because evidence suggests that businesses in the UK are generating hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of direct marketing calls every year that result in the consumer receiving a silent call. That may seem a rather bold assertion and the House may want to know what evidence there is to confirm it.
	A consultancy company called CM Insight Ltd recently produced a report that concluded that BT receives more than 100,000 queries every month from individuals who are concerned about silent calls. Companies will not generate all those calls, but evidence suggests that a large majority of the silent calls received by consumers do indeed originate from commercial interests. My Bill would create a specific offence if a telemarketing telephone call resulted in a consumer receiving a silent phone call or, as I call them in the title of my Bill, a corporate nuisance call.
	Why do those calls happen? The problem arises mainly out of the use of something called predictive or power-dialling equipment, which is designed to maximise the efficiency of call centre operations; in other words, attempting to maximise the use of call centre operations when companies are trying to sell their products and services over the telephone. That equipment routinely and deliberately generates more calls than there are live operators available, on the assumption that many of the calls will be unanswered. However, when more people answer the calls than predicted by the predictive dialling equipment, there are not enough live operators at the other end of the line to handle the calls, so many people receive a silent telephone call. The problem is compounded in many cases when consumers try to find out who is calling them at the other end of the line by dialling 1471 and are met with the message, "The caller withheld their number".
	It is not too difficult to imagine the impact that such calls can have on individuals, particularly on the vulnerable and the elderly, who may imagine that there is some malicious intent involved. Indeed, when I first raised the issue in the House in an Adjournment debate on 26 April 2002, I had been contacted by several of my constituents who had been pestered by silent corporate nuisance calls. In their case, they had gone to the trouble of going through the BT nuisance call bureau to discover where those calls had been generated and they found out that they had come from irresponsible companies rather than, as they feared, from psychopathic stalkers.
	I referred to vulnerable people a few moments ago, but the people who originally contacted me about the problem were far from vulnerable. They were people who could well look after themselves, but they were also deeply disturbed by the problem. It remains a problem. Yesterday I spoke to a journalist who said that she had previously been the victim of genuinely abusive stalking-type phone calls and then more recently received many corporate nuisance calls. It was a frightening experience for her as it was a reminder of her previous difficulties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who is sponsoring the Bill with me here today and who has campaigned on the issue in South Dorset, told me that when Radio Solent ran a feature on the problem, it received a bigger response from the public than for any other news item broadcast over the past 15 years. That shows that it is definitely an issue of genuine concern to our constituents.
	One commonly cited solution is to register with the telephone preference service, which enables consumers to have their number removed from the lists of telemarketing companies, including those registered with the Direct Marketing Association, the industry body. It is a mark of the scale of the problem referred to in my Bill that 5.25 million numbers have already been registered with the telephone preference service since its inception in 1999. That amounts to 24 per cent. of British households; 37 per cent. of those households say that they registered with the TPS in order to escape silent nuisance calls. About 12,000 people register with the TPS every year, yet many complain that they still receive unwanted calls.
	Although a £5,000 fine is already in place for companies breaching the TPS, to date not one fine has been levied against any of them and not one licence has been revoked during the legislation's six-year history. Let us compare that with the position in the US, where a similar scheme exists. The scheme now has more than 30 million numbers registered with it and it continues to grow at the rate of 4 million per month. It is interesting to note that in November 2001, the company AT&T was fined $780,000 for transgressing the "do not call this" scheme, the equivalent of our TPS. Clearly, our legislation needs to be toughened up.
	In addition, some consumers may not necessarily wish to block all telemarketing calls, whatever the faults in the system. Some may be willing to receive such calls, particularly when they are an existing customer of a company, but no one wants to receive a silent call.
	The industry has taken some steps since I raised the matter in the House in 2002. There is a Direct Marketing Association code of practice, which contains sensible provisions such as the basic requirement that caller ID is always available where a call fails, so that the customer can know the identity of the thoughtless company that believes it is appropriate to treat customers with such contempt as to give them a silent corporate nuisance call.
	However, the same code of conduct contains the pathetically weak provision that predictive dialling equipment should be adjusted so that no more than 5 per cent. of live calls are silent calls in any 24-hour period. Even if someone is lucky enough to get a call from a company that is signed up to the DMA's code of conduct—not all are—it is deemed perfectly acceptable that one in 20 of the calls answered should generate a silent corporate nuisance call.
	Let me just examine what that means in practice. Earlier this year, Ofcom took welcome action under the Communications Act 2003 against MKD Holdings in connection with the promotion of Kitchens Direct products. It is to the credit of the Direct Marketing Association that it originated the complaint. Ofcom's investigation showed that MKD made 24 million calls from its call centres between November 2003 and February 2004. Of those, 11 million were answered and 1.5 million resulted in silent calls. That was rightly deemed by Ofcom to be a misuse of the telecommunications system. But what if Kitchens Direct had been operating at the 5 per cent. level acceptable under the DMA code of conduct? Out of the 11 million calls, the company could have made 549,999 without falling foul of the industry's code of conduct, and that is just one company! We should welcome the fact that Ofcom has taken such action, but clearly it is not enough.
	I am not a Luddite—telemarketing is legitimate if responsibly regulated—but if it takes 1.5 million silent calls in three months to trigger action, the current system is too weak. The UK has gone for the consumer "opt-out" model whereas Germany and Italy have an "opt-in" model. Unless action is taken, pressure will grow for the UK to follow that route.
	My Bill would take the side of the consumer and put financial pressure on the industry to clean up its act. It would help those who currently follow best practice and penalise those who show little concern for the misery caused by their silent calls. It would end the scourge of the corporate nuisance call and help millions of people who currently suffer, literally, in silence.
	I commend my Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Kevin Brennan, Jim Knight, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Tom Harris, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Khalid Mahmood, John Robertson, Mr. John Bercow, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Lady Hermon and Sir Sydney Chapman.

Corporate Nuisance Telephone Calls

Kevin Brennan accordingly presented a Bill to create an offence in respect of corporate nuisance telephone calls: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 176].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Civil Partnerships Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples

'(1)   Two siblings, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.
	(2)   In this section "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister.
	(3)   Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.
	(4)   Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples—
	'(1)   An application for a dissolution order may be made to the court by either civil partner.
	(2)   On an application for a dissolution order, if the court is satisfied that—
	(a)   the application is made in the correct form, and
	(b)   the other civil partner has been served with notice of the application,
	   it shall make a dissolution order.
	(3)   Provision may be made by order specifying the requirements as to form and service of the application for a dissolution order.
	(4)   No order may be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	New clause 3—Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No.2)—
	'(1)   Two persons both of whom are aged over eighteen years shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they are in a relationship which meets the condition set out in subsection (2).
	(2)   The condition is that the relationship is one which is specified for the purposes of this section by Schedule [Meaning of specified relationship for the purposes of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No. 2)]].
	(3)   The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule [Meaning of specified relationship for the purposes of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No. 2)]] by—
	(a)   adding a relationship,
	(b)   amending the description of a relationship, or
	(c)   omitting a relationship.
	(4)   No order may be made under this section without the consent of the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
	(5)   The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(6)   An order which contains any provision (whether alone or with other provisions) amending Schedule [Meaning of specified relationship for the purposes of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No. 2)]] by—
	(a)   amending the description of a relationship, or
	(b)   omitting a relationship,
	may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order is laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(7)   A statutory instrument containing any other order under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(8)   Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.
	(9)   Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'relationship', insert
	'between two siblings who fall within the scope of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples] or'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 4, after 'relationship', insert
	'between two people who fall within the scope of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No. 2)] or'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'of the same sex'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 18, after 'death,', insert 'marriage,'.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 35, at end insert 'or'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 36, leave out from '16' to end of line 37.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—
	'(1A)   Subsection 1(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples].'.
	Amendment No. 4, in clause 36, page 16, line 20, at end insert—
	'(   )   with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples];'.
	Amendment No. 5, in clause 86, page 39, line 33, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A)'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 39, line 41, at end insert—
	'(1A)   Subsection 1(a) and (b) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples];'.
	Amendment No. 7, in clause 126, page 65, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   Regulations may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples]'.
	Amendment No. 8, in clause 138, page 69, line 25, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 69, line 31, at end insert—
	'(1A)   Subsection 1(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples]'.
	Amendment No. 10, in clause 159, page 77, line 19, at end insert—
	'(   )   Regulations may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples]'.
	Amendment No. 19, in clause 212, page 103, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
	Amendment No. 20, in page 104, line 6, leave out Clause 216.
	New schedule 1.—Meaning of specified relationship for the purpose of section [Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples (No. 2)]
	Amendment No. 18, in schedule 27, page 373, line 29, leave out paragraphs 40 and 41.

Edward Leigh: Broadly speaking, this Bill would give homosexual couples the same rights as those enjoyed by married couples. That is the principle of the Bill; although some of us oppose it, that is not what we are debating today. Whatever happens today, that principle will remain in place. Therefore, the new clause and associated amendments have not been tabled to wreck the Bill.
	The new clause, if accepted, would leave the substance of the Bill intact. I, and those hon. Members who support me, am trying to ensure that the Bill does not create more injustices. We accept that many people believe that homosexual couples who live together for years often suffer great hardship, and we heard many stories to that effect on Second Reading. People in that situation cannot leave their houses or tenancies to each other, and they encounter all sorts of other problems.
	An amendment tabled in the other place would have extended the same rights to others, such as siblings and other family members. Various objections were made to that proposal by the Minister and others. The Minister and her officials expended a huge amount of time convincing the House that the amendments were technically deficient. I believe, as do those hon. Members who share my views, that she could have made workable the amendments from the House of Lords if she had put the same amount of effort into doing so, but the Government's main objection to those amendments was that these amendments could be used to avoid inheritance tax, as they would allow people to pass property down through the generations.
	Therefore, we have decided to adopt a moderate and sensible approach today. New clause 1 is very narrowly drawn, and the aim of this group of amendments is very simple. It would merely give to siblings the same rights granted by the Bill to homosexual couples. By "siblings" I mean a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters.
	We have made the amendments very narrow indeed. It is not my job to foretell what will happen in another place, but I suspect that the issues raised today will be central to subsequent debates on this Bill.

Ann Widdecombe: On Second Reading, a principal objection to the relevant amendment that came to us from another place was that it would have required siblings to form a civil partnership. If one of the siblings later wanted to marry in what I still call the normal way—I am sure that that expression is politically incorrect these days—that partnership would have to be dissolved. It was therefore suggested that the Lords amendment was a nonsense for that reason. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new clause and the associated amendments will not fall into the same trap?

Edward Leigh: We took that argument on board after Second Reading. If my right hon. Friend looks at new clause 2, she will see that it does not adopt the same approach as the Bill. The Government may not admit it, but homosexual couples undertake what amounts to a marriage. The Bill is very long because it replicates a great deal of ordinary marriage law.
	The objection raised to the Lords amendment was that it would be absurd for family members to have to go through some sort of divorce. New clause 2 would create a far simpler procedure for dissolving civil partnerships between siblings. That would not be a divorce; it would be equivalent to the procedure adopted in the French civil solidarity pact, or PACS, system. The process would be a simple, paper-based way to dissolve a civil partnership.

Douglas Hogg: The basis of my hon. Friend's argument is the essential unfairness of inheritance tax. I agree with him about that. Does he not think that we should all concentrate our efforts on abolishing inheritance tax, rather than on trying to create these artificial partnerships?

Edward Leigh: Yes, I do. This debate provides an opportunity for that. The Government have said already that the Bill will require various consequential amendments to the Finance Bill. If the Minister were to intervene and say that she had spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he had told her that the forthcoming Finance Bill contained measures recognising that siblings who had lived together for a number of years suffered a gross injustice, we could all go home now.
	Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Government have made no such commitment. I give credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has made it clear in a letter to constituents that the first Finance Bill under a new Conservative Government would take action on this matter.

Chris Bryant: If this injustice is as important and significant as the hon. Gentleman claims, am I right in presuming that he has had many letters from constituents on this subject?

Edward Leigh: indicated dissent.

Chris Bryant: From the look on his face, it seems that the hon. Gentleman has not received any letters on this subject. However, if the issue is so enormously important, why has the Conservative party never proposed an amendment similar to the one under discussion today in any Finance Bill Standing Committee over the years?

Edward Leigh: We must deal with the situation as we find it now. In our law, it has always been accepted that marriage is unique. Certain privileges are conferred by marriage, and that is recognised in all societies in all parts of the world. The very good reason for that is that marriage is the building block of society. That is what we believe, and the Government apparently believe it too.
	With this Bill, the Government are saying something that has never been said before. They are creating a particular class of people—same-sex couples who live together—who will enjoy the same unique advantages conferred by marriage in respect of tenancy, inheritance tax and so on. We are therefore in a new situation.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked about letters. I have one here. The original was sent by a lady whose name and address I shall not reveal to the House, as she is an elderly spinster who wants to remain anonymous. The letter states:
	"I live with my single brother and have done so since my mother died in . . . 1983. He had lived with her all his life. I retired from (work) to look after her as she was 85 and had cancer. She died within . . . months of my leaving. Stephen—"
	that is her brother, although Stephen is not his real name—
	"really needed me to run the home . . . when my mother died I felt I should continue to live with him. I am now 79 and (Stephen) is 75."
	That is a real case involving real people suffering real injustice.

Chris Bryant: Such people always have suffered an injustice.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman says that such people have always suffered an injustice, so we should give credit to the Government. We have heard many stories about men who may have lived together for 20, 30 or 40 years. Why cannot we give the same justice to the elderly spinster—this real person—whose letter I have just read out?

Angela Eagle: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has narrowed the new clause, and I suppose we have to be grateful for that, but has he worked out how much it would cost the Exchequer to give siblings the pension provisions in the Bill? He has just made a spending commitment for the Tory Front- Bench team by saying that they will abolish inheritance tax, and I assume that there would also be pretty large pension costs in spreading to siblings the Bill's provisions for civil partners.

Edward Leigh: Unfortunately, I am only a Back Bencher. I would love to give a commitment on behalf of the Conservative party to abolish all inheritance tax, but sadly I am not able to do that, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have not done so. The point of my amendments is to avoid the charge that we are trying to let people avoid paying inheritance tax. "Stephen" and the elderly spinster will not be able to pass their advantage down the generations, so inheritance tax will be paid pretty soon for that 75-year-old man and 79-year-old woman. I freely admit that I have not got the exact figures on what my proposals would cost the Treasury, but the Bill itself puts a cost on the Treasury and we have not had many figures from the Minister on that. It is an affordable cost because it is a matter of justice.
	The hon. Lady seemed to imply that we are obsessed with inheritance tax, but we are not necessarily talking about inheritance tax. What will happen, for instance, if two sisters live together in a tenancy? They do not own the property, and if one of them dies the remaining sister, as well as suffering bereavement, will have what is called an assured tenancy. Under an assured tenancy, it is possible that her rent could rise or, in certain circumstances, that she could be evicted. She would not have a statutory tenancy, which is a far more secure thing. Under the Bill, a same-sex couple will have a statutory tenancy, and that is an obvious, glaring injustice to impose on siblings.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why he seems always to assume that only two siblings will be cohabiting? If it is so important to protect the rights of siblings who cohabit, why do his amendments not afford the same protection in situations where three, four or any number of siblings do so?

Edward Leigh: Usually, there are only two. Secondly, the Bill is about partnerships, and if we had tried to extend it further, we would be accused of trying to go way beyond what it is intended to do. Thirdly, if there are more than two siblings, the financial consequences when one dies are far less than they are when there are two siblings. It is more affordable and a less devastating circumstance. If there are a brother and a sister and one dies, the remaining brother or sister is faced with buying out half the property, and that may often not be affordable. I shall refer in a few moments to an opinion poll that shows that a very large percentage of the population—8 per cent., which is 3.7 million people—know someone who has lost their home as a result of paying inheritance tax.

Alan Duncan: If two people are sharing a house and one dies, the other would like to keep the house. If they have to register a civil partnership, though, they will pool all their assets, perhaps to the disadvantage of a third sibling, who effectively would be disinherited. My hon. Friend's measure would introduce into the traditional family some misery and stress, which would be rather undesirable in my view.

Edward Leigh: We had this argument on Second Reading. If my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, he should allow people to make that decision for themselves. There will be circumstances in which it is not advantageous for siblings to enter into a civil partnership. There may be circumstances in which it is not advantageous—perhaps for tax reasons; I do not know—for a same-sex couple to enter into a civil partnership. None of those arguments has been used against the substance of the Bill; they are used only against our amendments. If my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, such nit-picking objections are constantly raised against what is an attempt to correct a fundamental injustice. Given that the Bill will become law and that homosexual couples will have these rights, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are so violently and strongly opposed to extending the same rights to siblings.

Eric Forth: Perhaps it is simply this; what we face here is a well-organised, vocal minority in society who are constantly pushing for more and more recognition of the kind that the Bill is supposed to give them. Siblings are not such a minority and are not so vocal. In a parliamentary context, we feel under constant pressure from a vocal minority but, perhaps sadly, under little or no pressure from the very group that my hon. Friend is trying to represent.

Edward Leigh: Perhaps 80,000 same-sex couples will benefit from this Bill, but there are many other ways of living together—not necessarily in a sexual relationship—and those people do not have a voice. They do not come to lobby the House. We have a right, surely, to think of those other minorities, because they, too, have a right to justice. That is all that we are trying to give them. We are not trying to wreck the Bill or take anything away from homosexual couples. We are simply trying to extend a sense of justice to other people.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is a very clever Venn diagram in the world that excludes all homosexuals from being siblings. They are not two separate communities; there may be many siblings who are homosexual and who may, indeed, want to enter into civil partnerships with the partner whom they love. The hon. Gentleman said that many of us wholeheartedly oppose the idea of doing anything for siblings where they suffer injustice. He may want to withdraw that remark, because many hon. Members have members of their families who are siblings who have lived together and who may have suffered injustices. We want to put those injustices right, but to do so in proper order, and this is not proper order. The hon. Gentleman said it is normal for there to be only two siblings, but the two cases in my own family involved three siblings living together—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to save his remarks in case he wants to catch my eye later.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman makes an obvious point. People can make their own arrangements, and there may well be all sorts of arrangements we do not know about. Homosexual siblings may live together with other people, but that does not affect what I am saying. We did not ask for the Bill; in fact, we oppose the principle of the Bill. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] So what? We have never made any secret of that, and we will vote against the Bill. We have a perfect right to do that in a free House of Commons. All we are saying is that although we did not ask for the Bill, the completely novel idea has been introduced that a particular group of people should be helped outside of marriage. If we are establishing the principle that one group of people should be helped outside marriage, we say that others should be helped as well.
	There is a fundamental dishonesty about this debate. The Bill introduces homosexual marriage by any other name. The Government are determined, for political reasons, not to call it a homosexual marriage Bill because they do not want to alienate public opinion, but they are creating a homosexual marriage Bill.
	That peg allows me to move on to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He, too, has seen a logical flaw in the Bill. He wants to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. He asks why a couple who are heterosexual should not have the same rights. I do not accept or support my hon. Friend's amendments because I believe that marriage is unique and holy and should be left alone. None the less, there is at least some logic in what he is saying. He is at least being completely open with the House. No doubt the Minister will ensure that his amendments are thrown out, but I cannot see the logic in that. However, it is possible that the Government will introduce at some later stage, if they remain in power, some variation of the French PACS system for all sorts of couples. At least there is some logic in my hon. Friend's amendment. There is no logic in the Bill at the moment.

Douglas Hogg: This is a serious argument, but I suggest that my hon. Friend is wrong to say that the creation of civil partnerships is designed simply to provide financial relief for two homosexuals. The fundamental purpose is to assist two homosexuals who want some form of legal, continuing expression of their relationship. My hon. Friend may not agree with that, but it is a perfectly respectable objective.

Edward Leigh: Why are we not being honest about that? Why do we not say to the British people that the Bill will create homosexual marriage? The Government do not dare do so, because it would be too politically controversial. Instead, they are creating this ridiculous beast and, when we try to extend it to address injustice to other groups, we are told that it is special and nothing can be added to it. Why not? If one group of people are to enjoy those advantages outside of marriage, why cannot another group, such as those supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch?

John Bercow: I shall tell my hon. Friend why many of us resist his amendments. The Bill in its original form is not about tax relief: it is about the recognition of relationships—

Ann Widdecombe: Homosexual marriage.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend chunters from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose. If the injustice is as fundamental as my hon. Friend claims, why did he not argue for remedying it a long time ago? Alternatively, why does he not argue that it be remedied in a Finance Bill? Instead, he dresses up his arguments in what many of us regard as a contortionist's logic.

Edward Leigh: It is not contortionist. We did not ask for this debate. We had a simple system in this country, as in most other countries historically, in which society believed that marriage is such a useful bedrock that it should have unique rights. The argument is not only about inheritance tax: it is about many other things. We fully accept that. The Government, heavily influenced by the homosexual lobby, want to introduce the same rights for homosexual couples. That is fair enough, but why not be honest about it? They are not being honest, so they have created something that gives us an opportunity to talk about other people in similar situations.
	What does public opinion say? Communicate Research has asked some questions on the matter. It asked:
	"The Government wants to extend the financial benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in its Civil Partnership Bill. Some argue that it would be unfair and unjust not at the same time to make these benefits available to others who have lived together for a long period and become financially interdependent. Would you agree or disagree that were these benefits to be made available to gay and lesbian couples, they should be made available to two sisters who share a house for 12 years?"
	Some 84 per cent. responded yes to that question. Interestingly, 79 per cent. of Conservative voters were in favour of my amendment, as were 86 per cent. of Labour voters and 91 per cent. of Liberal Democrat voters. The public are overwhelmingly in favour of what I am trying to do.
	Other questions were asked, one of which will please my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). People were asked about the case of a daughter who lives with her elderly mother for 12 years, and 91 per cent. agreed that she should have the rights that I suggest—90 per cent. of Conservative voters, 91 per cent. of Labour voters and 95 per cent. of Lib Dem voters. If we had stuck with the original House of Lords amendments, we would be even more popular. But of course we could not do that, because they had no hope of getting through this House. That is why we have had to draw these amendments very tightly.
	There is no debate in the country. Some 90 per cent. of people agree with what I am trying to do. Why is it that the House of Commons alone believes that it has the moral right to stand against rectifying a fundamental injustice?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend places great store on opinion polls and public opinion. Did he also see the poll in The Times that showed that 75 per cent. of people backed the principle of gay couples having exactly the same rights as married couples? Should not that influence his judgment on how to vote today?

Edward Leigh: If my hon. Friend accepts my amendment, I shall think about accepting the Bill. I accept, for the sake of argument, that the majority of people accept the substance of the Bill. But an even larger majority— 91 per cent.—accept my amendments. Is my hon. Friend going to vote against them? He shrugs his shoulders.

Alan Duncan: I shall rise to that challenge. If those who were polled had been asked a secondary question to the effect that the amendments are impractical because many of the daughters caring for aged mothers may also want to get married, they would think again about supporting the amendments.

Edward Leigh: That is a very patrician point of view. My hon. Friend is very patrician in many of his attitudes. The truth is that we should respect people's fundamental good sense. As we are limiting the amendment to siblings in any event, there is no reason why it would be unworkable. Nobody has yet convinced me that there is any technical problem with inheritance tax that would make it unworkable.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is an articulate advocate of his position. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) described as many things over the years, but patrician is not one of them.

Alan Duncan: Magician.

John Bercow: Possibly. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that if the majority of those questioned were told that under the terms of the Bill the dissolution of a civil partnership between daughter and mother would require demonstration of an irretrievable breakdown between the two, the overwhelming likelihood is that they would reconsider their view.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is a very articulate parliamentarian, but if he wants to make progress in this place he should read the amendments that have been tabled. It would help. If he read new clause 2, he would see that we do not propose anything of the sort.

John Bercow: I said daughter and mother.

Edward Leigh: We are not debating that case. I have already conceded that point. We are dealing only with siblings, and the amendments would not require them to argue that they have suffered an irretrievable breakdown in their relationship. We have tried to listen to the objections to our amendments and we have narrowed them down and down, but we still meet this immovable objection in principle to remedying the injustice for siblings. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.

David Borrow: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's contribution so far. The Bill deals with many injustices suffered by same-sex couples. Could the hon. Gentleman identify the specific injustices suffered by same-sex couples that are also suffered by siblings and which the Bill should also address?

Edward Leigh: I do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He made a similar intervention on Second Reading and I have already tried to answer that point. I gave the specific example of assured and statutory tenancies, and inheritance tax is another obvious example. Another example might be if two sisters were living together and one was killed in a car crash because of the obvious negligence of another driver. The surviving sister would not be able to sue the driver for negligence. However, under the terms of the Bill, if a gay couple who had entered into a civil partnership were in the same situation, the bereaved partner could sue. We could go through the entire Bill and find similar examples. The hon. Gentleman is honest about believing in gay marriage and he knows that the Bill replicates the provisions of marriage and gives exactly the same rights to gay couples. That is why it is fundamentally dishonest.

Angela Watkinson: For clarification, my hon. Friend is not suggesting that registered civil partnership between siblings should be compulsory. That would be a choice for those who may wish to take it. The Bill purports to put right injustices in a range of things such as benefits, pensions, inheritance and tenancy arrangements for same-sex couples or same-sex cohabitees, but the schedules show that these provisions will not do that; they are available only to selected types of couple. That is where the Bill fails.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	Before I sit down, I shall say one last thing: I will withdraw the motion if the Minister says that the new clause is totally inappropriate because the Bill will create gay marriages and it would be quite wrong to add such provisions to a marriage Bill. I would fully accept that. If she intervened now, we could all go home—we would have had an honest debate and the public could make up their minds—but she will not make that sort of intervention, will she? She will repeat, time and again, that this is not gay marriage. If it is not marriage and we are simply outside marriage, why are we giving certain benefits to only one group? Why do we not give them to other groups? That is the inescapable logic of what we are trying to do today, and it is why we believe that our cause is fully rooted in justice and that it will not go away.

Angela Eagle: It has been enjoyable watching those on the right wing of the Conservative party expressing concern about injustice, because it does not happen very often. I welcome their sudden attention to such details after 18 years in power, when they did not really spend much time considering these important issues. Perhaps even they, in their last redoubts, are beginning to recognise how our society has changed over the past 50 years.

David Winnick: I am just off to a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, but listening to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) reminded me very much of the arguments used in 1967, when I was a Member and those who were very much opposed to legalising homosexuality put forward all kinds of arguments, including that it was a minority point of view. It was a minority point of view in 1967; the House of Commons gave a lead, as it did on divorce and abortion, and we were right to do so. We have heard just the same arguments as those used nearly 40 years ago.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. Even though I was only six years old when those debates were raging and could not know how relevant that move to tolerance would be to my own life, I am nevertheless extremely grateful to those who were Members in 1967 for having the foresight and humanity to make progress in those important areas, ensuring that we moved into an era when there is more tolerance of people with a different sexual orientation. However, in the week when we heard about an horrific homophobic murder in London, we can be a bit too complacent about the progress that we have made to date.
	The increase in homophobic attacks in London in the past year is a cause of worry, and it ought be a cause of concern for all hon. Members, including those Opposition Members who are in the last redoubt, fighting this change. They should be worried about that, and they should join those of us who wish for freedom from fear or violence on the streets of London for all people, regardless of their sexuality. I hope that they will join me in making that plea, but I do see them joining in very much at the moment.
	There are real issues with siblings and people who share a home for a long time but who are not in a marriage, a sexual relationship or a soon-to-be civil partnership. It is right that some of those issues have been raised. When they are raised seriously, very many hon. Members are sympathetic to them, and that is also true of the Government.
	If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) had read the report of the debates in the House of Lords when these issues were first raised, he should have noticed and at least had the grace to acknowledge in his speech the fact that Ministers expressed sympathy. They said that the Government were considering how to deal with some of the more obvious injustices for those who live together outside marriage and not in a sexual relationship. In fact, they announced that a review of such issues is going on. It is important that we await the outcome of that review so that we can find out how we can do justice for those who find themselves in those circumstances and can be disadvantaged if a sudden death has ruinous financial implications for those siblings who have shared their lives together.
	It is invidious and divisive but totally predictable that the hon. Member for Gainsborough is trying to use this inappropriate legislative vehicle, first, to prove his so-called point about gay marriage and, secondly, to wreck the Bill.

William Cash: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, somehow, with all the thought that has gone into this 420-page Bill, it would have been impossible to sort out that central question and get it completely clear? It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the matter should go off to review. We know what is in the Bill.

Angela Eagle: I am not saying that the matters in the Bill should go off to review. I am saying that the hon. Member for Gainsborough might have at least had the grace to mention in his opening remarks on the new clause that the Government are looking in general at the issue and have said that they will come back with some suggestions to improve the disadvantages that have been pointed out as occurring to those people who live in the same household but are not married, or are in what is soon to be called a civil partnership.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: Let me finish answering the previous point.
	It is entirely appropriate for the Government to consider such things, but it is not appropriate that that should be somehow imported as an afterthought into a Bill that is designed to recognise the partnerships of same-sex couples.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady said a moment ago that my hon. Friend's new clause would wreck the Bill. She owes a duty to the House and the country to explain why a very narrowly defined, simple new clause would wreck the Bill.

Angela Eagle: I was referring to the earlier Lords amendments, which undoubtedly wrecked the Bill. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will give me a chance to expand the argument, I was about to explain why even such a narrow new clause—I do not deny that it is—is still massively disruptive to the Bill's intended approach to same-sex couples. The new clause is hasty, and it would be better to deal with the necessary consultation on some of the issues that Opposition Members have raised in the fullness of time, using different legislation.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough had no idea how much the pension provisions in the Bill for same-sex couples that match those for spouses would cost if extended to siblings. One of the first requirements of any legislation or a new clause that deals with costs of that potential magnitude is that it should be costed. The Government's analysis of the pensions provisions in the original clauses, which go wider, demonstrated that they would cost £2.5 billion if private and public pension costs were considered. Narrowing down those provisions to siblings would still leave a sizeable hole in the public finances, which, again, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and his followers have not costed. Given such circumstances, it is important to assess the costs properly before taking a fully informed decision on the principles that we are debating, rather than voting for a hastily assembled provision.

Douglas Hogg: Surely the most conclusive argument that could be made against my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) would be to accept his challenge. He says that if the Bill is essentially about marriage for same-sex couples, his amendments are inappropriate. Why do the Government not simply recognise the fact that the Bill is indeed about marriage for same-sex couples, because on that basis, by his own concession, the amendments would fall?

Angela Eagle: The Bill is about civil partnerships for same-sex couples, which will recognise and respect a choice that people of a different sexuality from Conservative Members who have spoken have been denied. Thankfully, after many years, that choice will be granted to them. I do not think that it is reasonable to play politics with that.

Ann Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked the hon. Lady to confirm that the Bill was about homosexual marriage because if it is, we all agree that the amendments are inappropriate. Her response to that was that the Bill was about civil partnerships. Will she tell me the difference between the arrangements for civil partnerships for same-sex couples and a civil marriage in this country?

Angela Eagle: It is no secret that the Bill is an attempt to put in place arrangements that are as close as reasonable to civil marriage, but not holy matrimony. All Front-Bench spokesmen and hon. Members who support the Bill have been quite open about that.

Douglas Hogg: I favour the proposition that same-sex couples should be able to enter into a legal relationship if they wish. I do not want to do that, but I support the rights of others to do so. However, I do not understand why the hon. Lady and I cannot agree that that represents marriage—in substance, if not in name.

Angela Eagle: I have shared my views with the House, but it is important for us to talk about civil partnership and civil marriage because we should not offend or worry people who get married in a church, or appear that we, as a legislature, are stepping into areas on which the Churches have traditionally had their own rules. At the same time, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support for civil partnerships for same-sex couples, because it is about time that the House legislated for such an important development.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that he thought that the Government would come forward at some point with a French-style approach on other arrangements for people sharing homesteads. However, it is interesting that he wants to insert such a provision in the Bill. He accepted that the Government are examining the issue, so instead of being a bit more patient, why does he want to use the matter to try to wreck the Bill? Why is he setting the needs of one set of people against the needs of another? Perhaps that is the right-wing Conservative way, but I do not think that it is attractive.

Angela Watkinson: How does the hon. Lady think that the Bill will affect same-sex cohabiting platonic couples? For example, after the war, many women who lost their fiancées—they went to war, but did not come back—spent decades sharing homes. They may wish to avail themselves of all the legal benefits that the Bill will provide, but might not want to register civil partnerships because of the connotations that the debate is putting on them.

Angela Eagle: I suspect that people who wish to avoid such connotations will have to wait for the Government's review on people who are neither in an openly sexual relation nor eligible to get married, but who live together in shared houses. The House must work to recognise the way in which families and people live together, because that has changed over the years. It is time for us to examine the needs of people in various circumstances.

David Borrow: May I return to the argument about civil partnerships and marriage? Does my hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents see marriage in its religious context and think that marriage occurs between a man and a woman and that it should take place in a church? Although they would be sympathetic to a legal framework for same-sex couples, they would probably be deeply offended if the word "marriage" were used in that context. We must understand that many people of good will who have a serious opinion of the religious connotations of their marriage also accept that a legal framework is needed for same-sex couples.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point in his usual delicate and clear manner. It is far better to make decisions about aspects of social change in a way that unites and brings together people in this country, rather than one that divides them. That is why I congratulate the Government on their approach.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Lady mentioned the French PACS system. I take a great deal of interest in French society and law. A PACS does not need to mention family members because under the Code Napoléon, one cannot disinherit one's close family.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that lesson in French legal history and I am sure that the House has noted his point. I mentioned his off-the-cuff remark because he said that he thought that the Government would recognise other relationships in due course, yet also argued that such a measure must be introduced immediately, although that would be to the detriment of the Bill. I do not know why he did that, but if he was arguing along the same lines as Lord Tebbit in the other place, we can all fathom his real reasons.
	Even if Labour Members had a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus and accepted the amendments, I suspect that the hon. Member for Gainsborough would vote against the entire Bill on Third Reading. That puts the debate in its proper context—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman's laughter confirms my suspicion.
	We should oppose the amendments for now, but we should not give the impression that we are not considering the situation of people who share houses, but do not want to be in a sexual relationship, to be civil partners or to get married. Everyone knows that we must do that, so I look forward to reading the results of the Government's review. I hope that there will be further reform so that the Government will deal in a future Bill with any injustices suffered by siblings who live together.

Alistair Carmichael: We are considering new amendments, but we have, regrettably, heard the same old arguments. The motivation behind the amendments is the same as that behind those moved by Baroness O'Cathain in the other place. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) gave the game away when he issued a final challenge to the Minister that if she would accept that the Bill was about gay marriage, he would withdraw his amendments. That betrayed the attitude that underpins both his arguments and amendments. He does not accept the fundamental premise of the Bill, which is that we should offer equal opportunities to people regardless of their sexual orientation, and that is why I shall not join him in the Lobby.
	The hon. Gentleman is right. The amendments narrow the scope of those tabled by his noble Friends in the other place. He has gone to some pains to answer the more obvious objections to the ludicrous proposals on divorce. As a result, he has had to create a different regime of civil partnership, which reinforces the point that this is not the place to deal with cohabiting siblings or people in platonic relationships.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Bill does deal with same-sex couples in platonic relationships.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I apologise for that slip of the tongue.
	The question of inheritance tax among siblings should be dealt with in a Finance Bill. There will be other opportunities to deal with assured tenancies. The hon. Member for Gainsborough has not satisfactorily addressed my objection that, if more than two siblings cohabit, his amendments would lead to obvious conflict and injustice. If the principles of equality of provision for siblings who cohabit is so important, it is also important for those who cohabit in family groups of three, four or however many, and not just those who cohabit in couples.

Edward Leigh: Had I framed my amendments in a different way to cover three, four or five siblings, would the hon. Gentleman have supported me?

Alistair Carmichael: No. I have made it clear that this is not the place to deal with such issues. The Bill deals with the formalisation of relationships between same-sex couples.

Gerald Howarth: But we are talking about same-sex couples. Why does the hon. Gentleman not admit that this is a gay marriage Bill and, as such, there is no place in it for any provision for siblings?

Alistair Carmichael: It is frankly obnoxious, and as a Christian I find it deeply repugnant, for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the love of one sibling for another is the same as the love between couples in a same-sex sexual relationship. That is nonsensical.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why the Bill is not about gay marriage. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is something that is entered into by a man and a woman. That does not mean that I cannot accept that the rights and opportunities of those of a different sexual orientation should be protected in the same way. That is a fundamental premise. Frankly, I do not care if we call it marriage or not. The important thing is the outcome in terms of equality. That is why it is not about marriage and why the Government are right to call it civil partnership.

Douglas Hogg: Is not the hon. Gentleman cavilling at a word? Marriage is the legal recognition of a continuing partnership. He and I would hope that it would be blessed by the Church, but that is not the necessary element. In reality, whether it is a same-sex legal relationship or inter-sex legal relationship, it is the same thing. The Bill provides for the legal recognition of that long-lasting partnership.

Alistair Carmichael: I agree, but it is not me who is cavilling at the word. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends are insisting that the Government say that this is a gay marriage Bill. Their objection seems to be to the title rather than the substance. I am saying that the substance is important, not what we call it.
	I read with regret the advert placed by the Christian Institute in The Times this morning. It says:
	"I lived with my sister for 15 years. When she died I had to sell our home to pay the inheritance tax. Why should I have less"—
	I presume it means fewer—
	"house-sharing rights than a gay couple?"
	Obviously good grammar is not considered a particular Christian virtue by the Christian Institute. It has acted well outwith its remit in terms of charitable purposes. The Government should consider that, through the appropriate body.

John Bercow: Given that the approximate £20,000 cost of that full-page advertisement on page 31 of The Times by the Christian Institute would have sufficed to feed approximately 5,000 people in Sudan for up to a month, does the hon. Gentleman share my astonishment that a supposedly charitable institution should choose to deploy its resources in that way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would not want us to go too far down that road. Perhaps we could stick to the new clause.

Alistair Carmichael: In that case, I simply say that I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the broadest terms.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The issue is about freedom of speech.

Alistair Carmichael: It is about tax benefits for charities. That is what concerns me, which is why the Government should look at the conduct of the Christian Institute.

Chris Bryant: It is clear that, broadly speaking, there are two points of view. On the one hand, there is a wholly legitimate view, which I disagree with, that homosexuality is abnormal and wrong, that marriage should only be constituted as holy matrimony, that it is unique and holy, and that anything that looks like support for homosexuality in any shape or form is anathema and abomination.

Ann Widdecombe: I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase what he just said. No one has said that homosexuality or homosexual leanings are, to use his picturesque term, an anathema and abomination. What we would say is that homosexual acts are wrongful.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) accused some of us of nit-picking. The right hon. Lady has a great deal of nits to pick yet. Perhaps we should get the nit nurse in.
	One view of homosexuality is that it is wrong and that the state should not do anything, in any shape or form, to support or encourage it or, as someone said on Second Reading, to proliferate it. There is another view, which is that homosexuality is simply a fact of life and that everyone, regardless of their sexuality—heterosexual or homosexual—should have the right to formalise their commitment and love for another person, one to another.
	The Bill is not primarily about giving to another set of people a tax inheritance right that is currently available only to those who are married, as the amalgamation of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggests, thereby giving a special privilege to that set of people that is not available to anyone else. It is primarily about saying that it is not right that the state should never support those who want to make a legally binding and committed relationship secure through a legal commitment, one to another.
	I accept that some people believe that that is a wrong route. I note that many people believe that holy matrimony is completely different from civil marriage. Indeed, when the Spanish state in 1870 tried to introduce civil marriage for the first time in that country—previously, all marriage had been holy matrimony—the Catholic bishops said that it was certain that the project of civil marriage was wrong because civil marriage would never for Catholics be anything other than an "immoral harlotry" or a "scandalous form of incest".
	I know that there are those who still hold to the view that civil marriage is nothing to do with holy matrimony. In this country, of course, the relationship between holy matrimony and civil marriage has been rather confused because of the establishment of the Church and the fact that we have allowed clergy belonging to many different Churches to become registrars, and effectively to register civil marriage.

Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of the argument made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in Committee was that we should abolish civil marriage?

Chris Bryant: That is precisely the point that I wanted to make. Some people want to undermine the role of commitment in civil marriage, because they believe that only holy matrimony should apply in this country. Others, such as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has tabled amendments today, suggest that civil partnerships should be extended to all heterosexuals. I passionately believe that that is wrong, because it would undermine civil marriage and holy matrimony.

Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult to see why the Church should not bless relationships between same-sex couples, if that is what they all want?

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly agree. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suggested that I used colourful phrases in "abomination" and "anathema". "Anathema" comes from her own Church, and "abomination" comes from the Bible, which she reads assiduously, so it is hardly my colourful phraseology. Many people who belong to Churches, as well as Christians, including people polled by the Christian Institute—incidentally, its website address is the rather arrogant "www.christian.org.uk", as if there is only one way of being a Christian and one set of views on these issues—are either homosexuals themselves or accept that homosexuality has been a fact of life since the beginning of time. They believe that people should be able to celebrate that in the eyes of God and receive a church blessing. It is not for the state to legislate—it is for the Churches to decide whether they want to go down that route, and I suspect that, in the fullness of time, many of them may wish to do so.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough made three basic arguments. First, he argued that marriage is singular, unique and holy, which breaks apart the concept of civil marriage, let alone anything that is included in the Bill. His second argument was entirely fallacious, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) pointed out, because he contended that it is usually two siblings who live together. I have not received a single letter about the sibling issue on behalf of siblings in my constituency but, as I pointed out in an over-lengthy intervention, I have known two sets of siblings who have lived together for more than 12 years or for a large part of their lives. Three spinster second cousins of mine lived together in Aviemore for 70 years, and they made perfectly adequate provision for one another. One problem of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough—it is the only proposal that we are considering, and he cannot submit amendments that suggest that three, four and five siblings should be able to live together—is that three or four siblings would have to decide which two were going to form a civil partnership, which would be profoundly more disturbing for the family relationship than the present arrangements.

Edward Leigh: rose—

Chris Bryant: I have enticed the hon. Member for Gainsborough.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is making a meal of the proposals. The provision was drafted in a certain way, and I am quite happy to extend it, either here or in the other place, to cover more than two siblings. We will do anything that he wants. It does not matter what we propose, the hon. Gentleman would still oppose it, as he knows perfectly well.

Chris Bryant: And the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, whatever the Government's proposals, he would not accept them. He is disingenuous in the extreme but, more importantly, he is a far more experienced Member than I am, and knows that on Report we can only debate amendments that have been tabled, and must choose whether to accept or reject them. I am just trying to point out that his amendments do not even meet his own arguments, let alone any other arguments that might be made to support them.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendments create one final problem. I do not know whether he read the verbiage tabled in Standing Committee, some of which we debated and some of which did not pass muster, but he has decided to change tack slightly today. Instead of a system in which civil partnerships between same-sex couples are extended to siblings—they would have to dismantle their relationships, which would take time, and legal procedures could ruin family links between two sisters or two brothers—he has invented a wholly new concept of a relationship that is easily formed and dismantled. His argument therefore falls at the first hurdle.

Edward Leigh: I am at fault, because I should have said at the outset that the new clause applies only to siblings who have been living together for 12 years. The provision would not apply to a casual relationship between two people who pass like ships in the night.

Chris Bryant: The casualness is in the forming of the relationship and the determination that it should be registered as a civil partnership. In the Bill, we are trying to allow homosexual couples, both male and female, to declare their commitment to one another and enter into something which, I accept, is remarkably similar to marriage in many regards. To use a phrase deployed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on Second Reading, we are proceeding along parallel lines. It is right and proper that they are close together but, equally, it is a property of parallel lines that they do not cross.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the main purpose of the Bill is to recognise partnerships through civil registration. How does that affect same-sex cohabiting couples in a platonic relationship, such as two women who have shared a life together? They obviously do not have the sort of relationship that he is talking about, but they fall within the scope of the Bill. They cannot, however, avail themselves of civil registration.

Chris Bryant: I am glad to say that the secrets of our hearts are not known to everyone in the land. Many marriages in the land consecrated in church result in a remarkably platonic relationship. The couple, however, have decided that they want to declare their love for one another in public. The state should not try to ensure that those relationships are not platonic, as it is for individuals to make their own decision.

Alan Duncan: Is not the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) the strongest possible argument for inheritance tax deferral for such people, over and above any argument for their inclusion in the Bill?

Chris Bryant: That is not a matter for the Bill. We could discuss at length what constitutes a platonic relationship.

David Cairns: Do not go there.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend rightly warns me not to do so.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Gainsborough, in an effort to avert the arguments against his previous amendments by trying to make a relationship that is easily dissoluble in law, has established a new set of parallel lines that have nothing to do with the Bill, and should therefore be rejected by the House.

Christopher Chope: Before I speak to my amendments, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on the wording of new clause 1, which addresses concerns expressed on Second Reading and in Committee about the unintended consequences of the Bill, as amended in the other place. I challenge everyone who has used the anomalies in the original wording of the Bill as a smokescreen to confront the discrimination that, without my amendments or new clause 1, the Bill would embrace, as it would privilege same-sex partnerships over and above all other partnerships outside marriage. My hon. Friend's new clause extends the ability to access the privilege of legal partnership to siblings over 30 who have lived together for a continuous period of 12 years.
	New clause 2 would replace the complicated legal structure of dissolution, nullity and separation with a much simpler system of termination similar to the approach that I argued for in Committee, which is reflected in new clause 3, which I tabled.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his new clause would bring into the scope of the Bill couples of the opposite sex who are not married? Those of us who are extremely worried about the Bill because it undermines the uniqueness of marriage in favour of homosexual relationships must surely be vastly more worried by a proposal to extend its provisions to all and sundry.

Christopher Chope: I can understand that my right hon. Friend is worried about extending the Bill to all and sundry, as she puts it, but I hope that when she has listened to my argument in favour of new clause 3, she will accept its logic. In particular, she should bear in mind that the French civil solidarity pact is a registered relationship that is far inferior to marriage, and different from and looser than marriage. Nevertheless, whether partners are of the same sex or opposite sexes, they can enter into such a pact and thereby gain access to various state legal privileges. That arrangement has nothing to do with the law of God; it is purely a civil relationship. I commend it to the House in preference to the extraordinary arrangements set out in the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for looking satisfied with my explanation.
	I commend to the House the argument for extending the provisions in the Bill much further. My amendments would not limit the legal privilege of being able to apply for civil partnership as new clause 1 seeks to do. That privilege would be open to any two people over 18 in a specified relationship as set out in new schedule 1. It would be open to two unmarried and unrelated people sharing a home in an asexual relationship; an unmarried parent sharing a home with an unmarried son or daughter; two unmarried siblings sharing a home; and two unmarried and unrelated people in a sexual relationship sharing a home.

Douglas Hogg: New schedule 1 would have the bizarre effect of ensuring that inheritance tax is not chargeable in transfers between a parent and an unmarried child who registers, although it would be chargeable between a parent and a married child. That seems to turn values on their head.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about turning values on their head, but in doing my research for this afternoon's debate, I happened to notice that he supported the Bill on civil partnerships introduced by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) in 2001. That Bill sought to give legality to civil partnerships covering both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. I am disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend seeks by implication to support the whole structure of inheritance tax. I would have hoped that he would, like me, be against inheritance tax and want to abolish it as soon as possible. I hope that we can agree about that.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend must not do me an injustice. I am against inheritance tax and always will be. I want to see it abolished.

Christopher Chope: As soon as it is abolished, new clause 3 will no longer be the subject of any valid objection by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend mentioned the research that he had done in preparing for the debate. In doing that research, he will clearly have worked out how many millions of couples will benefit from the proposed package and identified its cost. Will he tell us what that cost is?

Christopher Chope: The arrangement would be open to about 4 million people. I am very disappointed by the implication of what my hon. Friend is suggesting. He seems to be saying that, if there is discrimination, there should be a limit on the price of eliminating it. I would have thought that, as a Conservative, he would be in favour of eliminating discrimination irrespective of the costs of so doing.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend help me through this maze with one very simple explanation? Under his new clause, what unique factors are still preserved by marriage?

Christopher Chope: The unique factors preserved by marriage are holy matrimony, permanence and all that goes with the fact that the relationship will be marriage.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I shall not do so at the moment, as I want to respond to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
	In France, marriage is a very strong institution. It has not been undermined one iota by the introduction into French law of the civil solidarity pact, to which I referred earlier. If one looks at new clause 2, which would effectively simplify the way in which one could enter into or break such a relationship, it becomes apparent that, far from being like marriage, this is a completely different and distinct legal relationship that is more like a contract and therefore totally unrelated to marriage. As it is distinct from marriage, it is much preferable to the complication in the Bill, which seeks to promote same-sex marriage in all but name.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Chope: I know that lots of hon. Members want to participate in the debate, but I think that it would be better to make a bit of progress before taking any more interventions.
	New clause 3 and new schedule 1 would give millions of people access to the legal privilege provided by the Bill, which the Government intend to be available only to same-sex partners. By far the largest category of people who could benefit from the new clause is unmarried and unrelated people sharing a home in a sexual relationship—in other words, cohabitees. The 2001 census found that slightly more than 4 million people lived in cohabiting relationships in England and Wales, in contrast with 78,500 living in same-sex cohabiting relationships.
	About five years ago, the Law Society published recommendations for reform of the law relating to cohabitants. Those proposals gave rise to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Reading, East. I shall not repeat to the House the full list of the Law Society's recommendations, but I point out that a primary recommendation was:
	"Any reform of the law should provide both heterosexual and homosexual cohabitants with increased protection, while not equating the remedies available with those available for married couples".
	The Law Society also said:
	"Cohabitants should have the right to apply for capital provision on separation. Applications should be determined having regard to the principle that fair account should be taken of any economic advantage derived by either party from contributions by the other, and of any economic disadvantages suffered by either party in the interests of the other party or of the family."
	It went on to say:
	"Cohabitation contracts should be explicitly recognised as being enforceable subject to safeguards designed to ensure that the contract is fair when it is entered into and any major changes of circumstances can be catered for during the lifetime of the contract . . . Cohabitants should be able to opt to take advantage of pension earmarking and, in future, sharing on separation . . . Changes should be made to the law on life assurance to provide that cohabitants have an insurable interest in the life of their partners and that a cohabitant should be able to take out a life insurance policy on his or her own life for the benefit of a partner."
	It was against that background that the hon. Member for Reading, East introduced her Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill in October 2001. That Bill was supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has spoken today in terms that would make it difficult for an objective observer to see how it was consistent to support that Bill and oppose the amendments before us. As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also supported that Bill.
	Why did people support the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill? They did so largely because of some of the cases identified by the hon. Member for Reading, East in her speech. I shall not repeat the whole of that speech, but I want to refer to a particular case that is pertinent to what we are discussing. She told the House about her constituent, Rose Green:
	"She had lived with John . . . for more than 12 years; they were engaged but they had never married—they never got around to it. They loved each other and saw no reason to change their situation. They expected to spend the rest of their lives together, but . . . last year John . . . died tragically and suddenly from a brain haemorrhage. That is when Rose found out that people who live together have no rights or responsibilities towards each other. She was not allowed to register John's death."
	Hon. Members who are concerned about same-sex partnerships have made that point.
	"She was not allowed to sign for his funeral. She even had to get his family's permission to make an entry in the book of remembrance."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 321.]
	The hon. Member for Reading, East introduced her Bill against that background, so that people such as Rose and John, who lived together, can have the same rights and responsibilities as others.

David Borrow: The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) raised in the House a few years ago was tragic, but does the hon. Gentleman think it likely that that couple would have registered their civil partnership, given that they never got round to marriage?

Christopher Chope: Such couples should be given the choice. New clause 3 would introduce a much simpler system of registration, akin to that that prevails in France. People would be able to enter that system of registration, knowing that it would commit them not to a lifetime, permanent relationship, but to a relationship for the time being, which would be completely different from marriage, but which would bring certain legal privileges provided by the state. That is the essence of the argument. I know that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) believes only in marriage—on Second Reading, he courageously said that he wants to enter into a firm, lifetime, permanent partnership following the enactment of the legislation—but many other people in both same-sex and other-sex couples do not want to embrace long-term commitment.

Douglas Hogg: Is there not a public interest point? If my hon. Friend's new clause carried the day, people who did not intend to make a lifetime relationship could register a partnership, from which huge legal consequences concerning, for example, pensions would flow. Is it right that such an entitlement should be attached to a relationship that is not intended to be long lasting?

Christopher Chope: It is right, and the Solicitors Family Law Association thinks so too, which is why it proposed a new cohabitation law, separate and distinct from matrimonial law. That proposal was not introduced by casual people writing on the backs of envelopes; it was introduced by a body of some 5,000 solicitors, who are specialists in dealing with the breakdown of families, both married and unmarried.
	The Solicitors Family Law Association sought to get Parliament to address how things have changed so radically over the years. In the late 1950s, which, like me, you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just 2 per cent. of women reported that they had lived with their first husband prior to marriage. By the 1960s, 25 per cent. of women had cohabited prior to marriage. By the mid-1990s, the figure had risen to 77 per cent., and it is probably even higher now. Social mores have changed, and Parliament must catch up. The proposal introduced by the Law Society and the hon. Member for Reading, East was designed to change the law to reflect the changing world.

Charles Hendry: Choice is the essence of new clause 3. My hon. Friend is discussing a man and a woman, who can choose whether or not to get married in either a holy ceremony or a civil ceremony, and who know that benefits will accrue from that choice. However, the Bill is about people who do not have that choice because they are in a same-sex relationship, which is why new clause 3 is fundamentally inappropriate.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has deployed those arguments before, but he fails to recognise that we should widen choice. People could opt into civil partnerships, but they would not have to do so and it would not be compulsory. New clause 3 would give people who want to register a cohabiting relationship short of marriage fresh and wider choice. Some 4 million people are already involved in such relationships.
	I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is active in campaigning for the Conservative case among young people. He will know that more than half of people in cohabiting relationships are aged between 20 and 35. If Parliament and, in particular, the Conservative party are to be relevant to people in that age group, there is a strong case for enabling—not forcing—those people to register their partnership, and thereby obtain access to legal privilege in same way as their counterparts in France. Why should we not do so? It would widen choice, freedom and responsibility.

Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is being generous with his time. May I postulate another case? What would happen if one of the parties wanted to get married or enter into a cohabitation arrangement and the other party did not? In that case, the "innocent" party would be unable to take advantage of either marriage or a cohabitation agreement. What rights would they have, and what rights would their children have?

Christopher Chope: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else involved in the debate has come up with a solution on unilateral marriage or unilateral partnerships, which the hon. Gentleman seems to be discussing. Perhaps he can come up with a formula that will find favour with the Administration. I am not discussing unilateral relationships or partnerships.

Kevin McNamara: I am not discussing unilateral relationships; I am discussing bilateral relationships in which one of the parties is not prepared to go the whole way, but the relationship has existed for 15 or 20 years—I know people in such circumstances. If the Bill grants people the right merely to register their interest, is it not unfair that a person who is unable to register such an interest because the other party is unwilling to do so should therefore suffer detriment?

Christopher Chope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the essence of the matter is agreement. Agreement is the basis for marriage, partnership or the French alternative, a civil solidarity pact.
	If we are bringing ourselves up to date as a modernising Parliament, let us reflect the changing approach to children born outside marriage. Before my mother produced me, neighbours living close to our home in Kent counted out the months between when my parents got married and when I was born—the gap was 11 months, which was legitimate. In the past 20 years, however, the proportion of births registered outside marriage has risen from 10 per cent. to more than 40 per cent., and more than half of those births are registered by unmarried parents with the same address. For the sake of their children and themselves, such people may want to take advantage of the new registration system in my new clause.

Chris Bryant: The incomprehensible part of the hon. Gentleman's argument is why people who are so committed to each other that they are prepared to have children, but who have decided not to get married, should suddenly decide to form a civil partnership.

Christopher Chope: Such people may regard marriage as a permanent, lifetime commitment that they do not have the self-confidence to make. However, they may want to make a commitment which may last a lifetime, but which can be broken much more easily than marriage.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I will not give way again, because I am in danger of using far too much time in this time-limited debate. It is appropriate to remind hon. Members that the tight guillotine imposed by the Government prevented us from debating 118 clauses in Committee.
	We were unable to debate a host of Government amendments and debated only six of the 29 schedules. In view of the limited amount of time that the Government have given us today, it would be over-indulgent for one hon. Member to take more than a fair share of it. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that wins support from other hon. Members.
	Let us remind ourselves of one particular group of people—those who are living together with a view to getting married. They may, for example, be waiting to get married at Christchurch priory, which is such a wonderful venue that it is sometimes necessary to book more than a year in advance in order to be able to do so. Why should those people be unable to register their relationship in a civil way so as to protect themselves in the event of one of them suffering an untimely death prior to the marriage? Hosts of people nowadays are separated or divorced and do not wish to enter into another marriage but would like to have the opportunity to register a relationship that is short of marriage.
	Extraordinarily, in 2001–02, 57 per cent. of the population believed that there was something called common law marriage that gives cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples. That implies that those people would like to have such rights although they do not have them at the moment. The Government's response is to say, "Well, let's have a big education and propaganda campaign." My response, as a free marketeer, is to say, "Let's widen the choice—let's introduce a new partnership that people can opt into if they want to." That is exactly what has happened in the past. If we look in the history books, we see that the Marriage Act 1753 was introduced to deal with changing arrangements that Parliament thought should be reflected in changes to the law.
	I want to refer to some of the other amendments that stand in my name. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would remove the restriction on civil partners having to be of the same sex. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would enable a partnership to be automatically terminated or dissolved by the subsequent marriage of one of the partners. That is a very important point that we debated briefly in Committee. One of the parties to a same-sex partnership may wish to enter into holy matrimony and should have the right to break the partnership in order to marry. That is not a new idea—it already happens in the jurisdiction of Portugal—and it is unconscionable that this House should legislate to prevent it from happening.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 would alter the rules on eligibility to reflect new clause 3 and new schedule 1. I want to say a few words about amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which would put recognition of all overseas civil partnerships on an equal footing. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will agree with me about this. In France, cohabitees of the opposite sex or the same sex can enter into a civil solidarity pact, yet clauses 212 and 215 provide that partners in a French civil solidarity pact who are registered as such will have their partnership recognised in English law only if they are of the same sex. That would necessitate investigations into whether the partnership was between same-sex or opposite-sex couples. That is highly discriminatory. Why should we not be prepared to recognise foreign civil partnerships, whether of the same sex or the opposite sex? I beg to suggest that that is in fundamental breach of human rights and freedoms and should be addressed, if not by the Government's acceptance of my amendments, then by the other place.
	At the moment, the Bill creates a legal minefield. It is discriminatory in nature. It is effectively a same-sex partnership Bill, but the Government do not have the guts to call it such. It therefore offers scope for the acceptance of the amendments, which would ensure that it is no longer a same-sex partnership Bill but a much wider partnership Bill.

John Bercow: I have never previously viewed my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) as a moderniser, born-again or otherwise. He has presented himself in a new guise this afternoon, and I sought attentively to listen to and to take account of his arguments. I confess that, just as on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, I found those arguments unpersuasive.
	Let me begin with my hon. Friend's amendment on extending the right of civil partnership to heterosexual couples. It is fair to observe, though I accept that it does not of itself undermine his argument, that there appears to be something of a split on this matter between different strands of the traditionalist view among Conservative Members. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) are against the extension of that right to heterosexual couples. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is against the Bill, would admit that that would not have been his original preference.
	What I tried unavailingly to elicit from my hon. Friend in Committee, and would try to extract from him now, is an explanation of what so far has not been explained—at any rate, not to me. How is it that, as my hon. Friend contends, civil partnership rights for gay couples undermine marriage, but civil partnership rights for heterosexual couples, for whom the option of marriage is available, do not? That strikes me as such an extraordinary argument that it requires explanation.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Bercow: I was about to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but if he wants to help himself, I am obliged to him.

Christopher Chope: If my hon. Friend has listened to my speech he will know that I have not once deployed the argument about undermining marriage; I should like to establish a different system other than marriage that people can opt into if they want to.

John Bercow: This seems to be a moveable feast. I had thought that I was listening closely to my hon. Friend's remarks. I am not able to regurgitate the full contents of his speech on Second Reading or to remember verbatim what he said in Standing Committee, but I do recall, because the argument was advanced so forcefully and frequently, his view that the Bill, in conferring these rights on gay couples, would undermine marriage. It therefore seems reasonable to ask him how it is that conferring similar rights on heterosexual couples who, unlike gay couples, can marry, would not undermine marriage.
	I have observed before that the late Enoch Powell, a man with whom I agreed on some things and disagreed on a great many others, often used to say that such and such a point was so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to grasp it. This point is so blindingly obvious that I cannot understand why my hon. Friend cannot grasp it. I have put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) before.

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase his comments and refer to heterosexual couples who "may be" able to marry?

John Bercow: Yes, I am prepared to amend my position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. In most cases that the amendment would affect, the heterosexual couples could marry but I accept that there are some circumstances in which they could not. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying and improving my argument.
	I said that I was prepared to go a stage further than simply objecting to the illogicality of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I am prepared to nail my colours to the mast. After reflection and on balance—I do not feel passionately strongly about the matter—I believe that extending civil partnership rights to heterosexual couples would probably undermine marriage. I say "probably" but I am not sure whether it would have that effect. I am simply sensitive to the possibility. That would be undesirable.
	As my hon. Friend said, several people who introduced Bills on civil partnership rights in the past suggested that they should apply to both categories of person. However, it is equally true that in many examples from around the world, the entitlement exists only for same-sex couples. I believe that it is better to stick with the Bill rather than take a risk that is probably greater than any benefit that it might confer.
	I want to deal briefly with tax, which featured prominently in the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and in exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and several hon. Members. The Bill is not principally about tax. It potentially includes tax implications for future Finance Bills but it is not mainly about that. It is about recognising relationships. It was a weakness in the passionately and sincerely argued case of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that he was unable to explain why, if the injustice against siblings was as fundamental as he claimed, he had not previously argued for it to be remedied through legislation.
	My hon. Friend and others who share his view are perfectly free to argue for inheritance tax relief or, indeed, abolition, if they wish. For the avoidance of doubt and because I do not want to be outdone by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I make it clear that, philosophically, I am sympathetic to the abolition of inheritance tax, but with two caveats. First, it should not be a top priority for Conservative Members given the limited public resources that might be available for tax relief.
	Secondly, not only should it not be a top priority for Conservatives against other and better competing claims, but we must be realistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough talked about living in the real world and dealing with circumstances as they exist. We must acknowledge that, however much we dislike the fact, at the moment—hopefully not for much longer—there is a Labour Government, who have rather a large majority. If inheritance tax relief is not a high priority for some Conservatives, it is no priority for the Labour Government. We cannot realistically cavil at that. We are therefore left with dealing with the Bill as it is.
	It seems wrong to superimpose on the architecture of civil partnership, which is aimed at and will benefit people who cannot marry, an arrangement exclusively for the benefit of siblings or heterosexual partners who could get married. The Bill is not about tax. If we want to propose a tax measure, let us do that in a tax Bill. It is a deeply regulatory approach—the adoption of a sledgehammer to crack a nut—for a Conservative Member to try to create an architecture of civil partnership for people who could marry and enjoy all the benefits of marriage when the Bill is a narrower measure, aimed at an identifiable group of people who suffer exclusively from one disadvantage: that because of their orientation, they cannot marry.

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman change "could" to "may be able" to get married?

John Bercow: I thought that I had explained that I accepted the hon. Gentleman's central point that, although in most cases the people to whom I refer could get married, a proportion are not in a position to do so. Those who are keenly interested in the debate would not thank us for being excessively pedantic when we know the broad issues, underlying principles and legal, financial and other consequences of the Bill.

Desmond Swayne: Given that many of us have received forceful representations from heterosexual couples who want to avail themselves of the benefits of the new relationship, the Bill is a perfectly logical vehicle for trying to secure such an amendment. Telling people that they can get married is an argument that a clergyman might put to them, but not a politician. They do not want to get married. It is their choice not to get married. We are told that the measure is not a marriage Bill and we are therefore perfectly entitled to try to secure the sort of amendment that we propose.

John Bercow: That does not work, because my hon. Friend believes that the Bill will damage marriage as an institution through creating civil partnership entitlements. [Interruption.] If he believes that marriage will be damaged by conferring civil partnership rights on gay couples, it is thoroughly illogical of him to suggest that marriage would not be undermined by giving the new rights to people who could avail themselves of the opportunity to get married in a way that gay couples could not. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is champing at the bit.

Desmond Swayne: I have taken Ministers at their word. They say that it is not a marriage Bill and I accept that. I do not believe that the Bill damages marriage any more than I believe that extending the relationship to those who are not married will damage it. A growing proportion of our constituents are choosing to live in that way. If we ignore that reality, we shall undermine the stability of the social fabric. The arrangements should be extended to the growing proportion of our constituents who want and demand them.

John Bercow: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments. He referred to the growing proportion of our constituents who want and demand the arrangements. Let us be clear. I do not know how many representations, written or otherwise, hon. Members have received about the Bill. I have received a substantial number from gay couples who feel that they are not only invisible, as the Government often say, but almost non-existent in the eyes of the law. In the past 12 months since the Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, I have not received a single letter from a constituent in a heterosexual relationship demanding that the Bill be extended for his or her benefit. I have not received one such representation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is entirely correct to say that cohabitation is growing, and that more and more people voluntarily choose that arrangement for their life. It is not, however, correct to say that there is a great clamour to extend the Bill in this way. It is a combination of that fact and my genuine concern that these measures could undermine the institution of marriage—which my hon. Friend and I, in our different ways, both cherish—that causes me to oppose the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
	The argument against extending these rights to siblings has been eloquently developed by a number of my colleagues. I have sought, in my humble fashion—or as near to humble as I am able to muster—to develop the arguments against the amendments, both on Second Reading and in Committee. I do not feel it necessary to dilate now. I should simply like to make two other points.
	First, there is a cost issue involved, and I do not think that it is good enough for my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for Christchurch simply to brush aside the cost considerations. Many of us genuinely disagree with my hon. Friends on the issue of principle, but, given that there are all sorts of arguments that colleagues have rightly used in pressing their case, it is reasonable for us, whether we agree with the principle or not—I do not—to say, "What about the cost implications?" I have always regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch as a very model of fiscal probity. If, in fact, I were now to discover that he was the spendthrift of Christchurch, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to factor that into the equation and to use it as a criticism of his argument.

Gerald Howarth: I am sorry, but I cannot quite remember exactly how much the Bill will cost, in terms of public money, if it goes through without these amendments. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his fantastic, encyclopaedic knowledge, will be able to remind us of the figure.

John Bercow: Off the top of my head, I cannot. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) chuntering to some other hon. Friends about this a few minutes ago. I know that he was, perfectly reasonably, considering saving that rather juicy intervention for the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). The hon. Lady managed to escape my hon. Friend's intervention, however, so I have been subjected to it instead. My honest answer is that, on this occasion, my hon. Friend has checkmated me. I do not know exactly, but, if I remember rightly, the figure is in the tens of millions. The Government have very fairly explained in the regulatory impact assessment what the cost of the Bill will be, and it is a relatively small cost. I happen to believe that it is a justifiable cost, and I do not think it right that we should substantially extend that cost, at a time of limited resources, by seeking to inject these provisions into a Bill to which they are not suited.
	Finally, I want to deal with the question of whether this is about marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made the point extremely effectively on Second Reading about civil partnership developing along parallel lines to marriage. The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) stressed very openly—on Second Reading, I think, and certainly in Committee—that the Government's objective was to try to ensure that the provisions in the Bill corresponded as closely as possible to the procedures and entitlements of civil marriage, although not of holy matrimony. The question of whether a civil partnership is a marriage or not is therefore largely irrelevant.
	We are seeking to provide to people who cannot marry arrangements that do not disadvantage them. That is why I am inclined to say that the arrangements in the Bill for civil registration for gay couples are analogous to, but not the same as or indistinguishable from, civil marriage. That seems to be a perfectly respectable position.
	The Bill, in its original form, was a good Bill. It will command widespread support, and I do not think that it should be interfered with in the way that some Members want. In rejecting the amendments that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Christchurch have perfectly honourably tabled, and to which they are speaking, I want to leave them with this simple thought; we cannot have it both ways when addressing the issue of civil partnership and the rights of gay people—[Interruption.] Let me try to develop a point that is important to me. Members cannot complain that gay partnerships are inherently transitory and unstable, and yet, when the opportunity for civil registration comes along—giving people the chance to declare their commitment, with the welter of rights and responsibilities that flow from that commitment—say that those people should not have that right to declare their commitment.
	This is an opportunity to give substance, body and rigour to a new arrangement. I would like to suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that that arrangement is philosophically defensible from several different perspectives. I am perfectly prepared to accept that an argument can be made for the arrangement that is fully conversant with socialist principles. Similarly, I accept that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) can make an argument for civil partnership and ground it in Liberal philosophy. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends disagree with me, but I passionately believe that the principles of civil partnership for gay couples are eminently defensible in and can be expressed as part of Conservative philosophy. If we took a sensible and forward-looking approach, there would be nothing to stop a commitment to civil partnership rights in a Conservative manifesto.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition sensibly allowed us a free vote on the Bill instead of stopping Conservatives voting for it. I was inspired when in February this year, in a speech to Policy Exchange, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he himself would vote for this Bill. I was even more encouraged when he made it clear that although he recognised some of the grievances that siblings and others might have, he judged that the amendments in the other place, which are favoured by some of my hon. Friends in this place, were not appropriate to the architecture of this Bill. As usual—although, I admit, not as always—I am strongly in agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Alan Duncan: I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may still wish to speak, and I do not want to stand in their way, but it might be helpful, at this stage of our interesting exchange, for me to comment on this group of amendments.
	I find myself addressing the amendments with a sort of haunting inevitability—those of us who have followed the Bill through all its legislative stages so far will know what I mean, and may share my profound sense of déjà vu—because we have debated amendments of a similar or identical nature at every stage of the Bill. At every stage, in my opinion, the arguments against them have been overwhelming. None the less, for the benefit of Members who have not heard all our proceedings, it may be useful for me to rehearse the arguments once again, and to assist those who have to some extent been misled by assertions made in newspaper stories and advertisements that appeared in our press today. Perhaps I can say, "Here we go again," and some Members may be able to join in at the chorus. [Laughter.]
	We are told that the motivation for tabling the amendments, as we were told in another place when amendments were tabled there, is to address the grievances of elderly siblings or carers who share a house and are stung by inheritance tax when the person with whom they live dies. It is indeed profoundly unfair that people who cohabit in this way are disadvantaged on the death of the other, by being forced out of their home or subjected to crippling inheritance tax so late in life. It is absolutely right to raise those issues, and in doing so the plight of those who are disadvantaged in this way was drawn to the attention of a wider audience. We have made an issue out of a concern that was not widely known about previously, but which genuinely exists. That has resulted in the Government's promising to take further action to address those issues, and we intend to hold them to that.
	Let me remind the House that the Minister of State in the Home Office, Baroness Scotland, said in Grand Committee in another place:
	"I shall certainly undertake . . . to give the House the more mature reflection of the Government in relation to how to respond to that issue . . . these issues have percolated to the top of the discussions on a number of occasions. They are issues with which the Government have grappled and they will . . . continue to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC 31.]
	But we continued to press for the result of that grappling to be made clear, and we will continue to do so. In Committee, the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality herself said:
	"We are aware of the concerns, particularly of carers, but we do not believe that close family members need legal recognition as civil partners to make sense of their family arrangements. They are already related."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 19 October 2004; c. 12.]
	That is quite so. And as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said in a letter to colleagues, and to others who have written to him, to which reference has been made this afternoon:
	"If two sisters were to register their partnership, they would have to pool all their assets. If, later on, one of them wanted to get married, the only way they would be able to terminate this partnership would be through complicated legal proceedings"
	—that is, through dissolution.
	I admit that in the new clause my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) makes the dissolution easier, but that does two things. It dilutes the quality and extent of the commitment that civil partnerships are designed to entail, and it introduces a separate regime for, in some respects, similar sets of people. It therefore introduces a new scale of discrimination that did not previously exist. Rather than addressing a problem of discrimination, the new clause compounds it.
	As others have said today, the complications do not end there. What if three of more siblings shared a house? What if two did and one did not? How would they decide which two would form a civil partnership, and what the effects would be? What if someone in a civil partnership with an elderly relative wanted to marry, and wanted to move in the prospective spouse to share the burden of caring? In such circumstances, they would be barred from marrying until the civil partnership had been dissolved in court. If, as would apply under another amendment, dissolution were automatic, that too would dilute the nature of the commitment intended in a civil partnership.
	The partners would face the prospect of embarking on a complex legal process to prove irretrievable breakdown. That might be more difficult in the case of a mother than in that of a mother-in-law, but in any event it would be required. Alternatively, they would be accused of living in sin under the roof of the family home—or they would have to live in sin under the roof of the family home, and what would the Christian Institute say about that?

Peter Bottomley: I think that most Members with no prejudices in either direction will have understood some of the arguments, including those of my hon. Friend. The fact is, however, that a significant proportion of marriages involve such problems, and they are not an argument against a Marriage Act. What we are doing is extending some rights to some people outside marriage—those who cannot marry.
	The question that occurs to some of us is, "Why must we exclude people who might properly receive the benefits that follow from civil partnership?" Nothing that has been said on either side of the House strikes me as conclusive. I feel that it is taking the argument too far to cite the difficulties of dissolution when the same difficulties do not prevent us from getting married.

Alan Duncan: The answer to that is that there are concerns to be addressed, but this is not the place in which to address them.
	The new clauses and amendments wreck the Bill by creating partnerships within an existing family which, in their confused and contradictory interrelationship, are utterly unworkable. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave a very good example when he cited the complications to the inheritance tax regime. The new clauses and amendments are an ingenious disruption masquerading as a genuine attempt to help people whom they would not, in fact, help. The associations that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough wishes to protect—as do I—could, as he admitted, be included in a Finance Bill. They are not addressed by this Bill, for a very simple reason that no one has mentioned today.
	The Bill cannot come into practical effect until there is an accompanying Finance Bill to implement all the measures. That is the place for all the arguments that have been deployed by my hon. Friends today. They do not fit in this particular piece of primary legislation.

Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the last Finance Act contained paving measures for this Bill?

Alan Duncan: No. I argued for that on Second Reading. I would have liked the financial measures to coincide with Royal Assent for the Bill, but because this Bill did not exist, I was told that it was not possible to include such measures in the Finance Bill. If my interpretation is wrong, I am sure that the Minister will clarify the matter.

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Alan Duncan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
	Other groups have also recognised that this is not the right way to address these issues, and they have said so on many occasions. As we have been told three or four times in this Chamber and in Committee, the Carers National Association, which purportedly would benefit from the new clauses and amendments being moved by my right hon. and hon. Friends, has stated its opposition to such provisions. It says:
	"We foresee many potential negative impacts on the cared for person and the carer with the amendments to the Bill . . . The changes could have a devastating impact on the income of the carer and the person for whom they care".
	So all the apparently good motives supposedly contained in the Bill stand to have a "devastating" effect on the people whom they pretend to assist. That is not the kind of purpose that we in this House properly serve.
	But there are many other anomalies—

Edward Leigh: But such an arrangement would be voluntary.

Alan Duncan: But if it can almost never work and it would not introduce a system that has parity of effect across the sector that my hon. Friend is trying to help, even more anomalies would be introduced than the ones I have listed, thereby making matters even more complicated. As a result, there would be carers who need help but who cannot benefit from the status of the law, and those who can. A myriad complications and discriminations would render many a carer far worse off than equivalent carers who would be equally deserving.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend must not be too generous with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), because although, as he just said, the arrangement would be voluntary, it would be chronic if we in this House deliberately—or even inadvertently—misled people into thinking that they were going to get a benefit that in fact would prove not at all workable.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the new clauses and amendments have the potential to help some people, in my view they would wreck the Bill and introduce no end of problems; moreover, they would be only symbolic in their effect and cause many more problems than they address.

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Duncan: Once again, my generosity overtakes me.

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his typical generosity. He has repeated the assertion, made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), that the new clause would wreck the Bill. However, it is very narrowly defined and if passed, in its simplicity and clarity—even given the problems that he foresees—it nevertheless would not wreck the Bill's central purpose, which he appears to support.

Alan Duncan: I remember a little homily that Lord Lawson offered when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When once urged to simplify the taxation system, he said that the problem is that as soon as one tries to do so, one invariably makes it more complicated. Those responsible for this supposedly simple group of new clauses and amendments could benefit from listening to that homily. These measures would not make things simpler; they are straightforward, but with potentially devastating and complicated implications.
	Many other anomalies and absurd unintended consequences arising from trying to shoehorn these measures into the Bill would also make it utterly unworkable. What is needed are measures to offer inheritance tax deferral to anyone who finds themselves in the situation described emotively in this morning's Christian Institute advertisement. The place for securing inheritance tax deferral is—we say it again—in a Finance Bill, not a Civil Partnership Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough essentially admitted earlier. We do indeed have the opportunity to include such an amendment to the Finance Bill that will be required to accompany the Bill before us. Indeed, that is the approach endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who supported the action that we took in Committee to reverse amendments made in another place. I make no apology for repeating what he said in a letter to colleagues and to those who wrote to him:
	"I therefore think it better to return the Bill to its original form and fight vigorously for provisions to be included in a Finance Bill which would remedy the unfair disadvantages which affect them. This is what we shall do our best to achieve in the House of Commons during the passage of the next Finance Bill."
	That will be a glorious moment, because there is nothing that I would enjoy more than to be able to work in harmony, unity and unison with all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the manner best suited to dealing with the problem.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Alan Duncan: I still live in hope.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend let us know whether the commitment given by our right hon. and learned Friend extends to people who are cohabiting? Surely it is important for them to be included in it.

Alan Duncan: In my personal opinion, rather than an official party position, I hope not, and for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) of all people should most understand—that it would undermine the institution of marriage. I believe that provisions should not be placed in a finance Bill to deal with that category of people.

David Cairns: When the hon. Gentleman forms his broad coalition to fight for inheritance tax reform, does he expect the Christian Institute to argue that cohabiting couples should receive the relief and not just married couples?

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman hits on the absurd contradiction contained in any argument for that position. It is certainly my view—we have been consistent in it throughout the Bill's passage—that we should not do anything to undermine the institution of marriage, and setting up a system of competing civil partnerships alongside heterosexual marriage would do exactly that. When it comes to setting up such arrangements for same-sex couples, I have argued that we are not exactly fishing in the same pool.
	Both my party leader and I believe that amending a Finance Bill to allow inheritance tax deferral on certain terms is a sensible approach, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it. I am sure that they will, when the moment comes. During the passage of the Bill, this important issue has been brought to wider attention; the Government have made some commitments to dealing with it, though not as firmly as we would like; and the leader of the Conservative party has committed us to fight for such a measure as a matter of policy. As far as I am concerned, that is not a bad result all round, though I would like to see it brought to a conclusion.

Charles Hendry: This afternoon's debate has focused heavily on the financial aspects such as inheritance tax, the transfer of housing rights and pension rights, but does my hon. Friend accept that a large part of the Bill deals with very different issues that uniquely affect same-sex couples and do not apply to siblings? I am thinking, for example, of the rights of next of kin, visiting rights in hospitals, the right to take decisions about a deceased partner and what subsequently happens to the estate and so forth. We should be focusing on those issues, but some of the other amendments have highlighted the fact that the Bill is not the most appropriate vehicle to deal with all of them.

Alan Duncan: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I am happy openly to reassert that the fundamental assumption of the Bill is that a partnership is based on a permanent and loving relationship. As such, it is different in respect of the affection between a sister and brother or two sisters and two brothers, and it is also different because the arrangements apply to a different group of people from those in the established traditional institution of marriage.

Desmond Swayne: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he deal with the point that was forcefully made earlier—that cohabiting couples deserve the same protection as those who are married? My hon. Friend's answer is that they can get married, but they may not want to get married. It seems to me that telling those people that they should get married is to preach at them and to fly in the face of reality.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is going through logical contortions here. It is not preaching at people. It is perhaps others who preach by saying that, because they are cohabiting, they should get married. I am not saying that and neither are most hon. Members. What we are saying is that, given that those people have the option of marriage and can quite readily secure all the rights that are currently given to same-sex couples in the Bill, they should not also be afforded the right to civil partnership. After all, they may be less inclined to enter into a civil partnership just to secure those rights than they would be to enter into marriage. As has been noted time and again, if there existed a parallel and equivalent institution—civil partnership—that was an alternative to heterosexual marriage, that would be in competition with marriage and would undermine it. It is strange that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and I appear to be on opposite sides of this argument, when one might expect him to agree with me that we should do everything possible to protect the traditional institution of marriage.

Peter Bottomley: It has been established that the amendment would not undermine the purpose of the Bill, but I want to propose to my hon. Friend the example of people who may live together between the ages of, say, 60 to 100. Such people might be an elderly surviving orphan and a housekeeper, for example. If they are of the same sex, they may enter into a civil partnership, but they cannot do so if they are not of the same sex. Why is the partnership available to people of the same sex who want to live together in a loving but non-sexual relationship, but not to people of different sexes?

Alan Duncan: I am not sure that I quite understand what my hon. Friend means. Two people living together have the option of marriage, and it is possible that the Finance Bill will contain a provision to defer inheritance tax, thus overcoming the main problem that we are trying to address.
	I shall explain why I was rather disappointed when I saw these amendments appear again, and when I saw this morning's media coverage and advertisements. After all the debates that we have had on this issue, no one with any interest in it can be left in any doubt about the effect that the amendments would have. The Bill would be undermined, and I argue that the amendments would wreck it.

Edward Leigh: Why?

Alan Duncan: I have explained that about a million times. In wrecking the Bill, the amendments would do no one any good—least of all those whom the amendments are claimed to help.
	Let us examine the Christian Institute advertisement. It states that 84 per cent. of people say yes to the assertion that if gay couples—and there is an insinuation in that that I do not particularly like, but I shall take it at face value—are to get new house-sharing rights, then so should two sisters who have lived together for 12 years or more. I agree that such people should be assisted, as the advertisement asks. In fact, I do not understand why only 84 per cent. of people were reported to agree with that proposition: why is it not 100 per cent?
	As I have just said, we support the provision of inheritance tax measures to ensure that such couples are treated more fairly. However, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for that. That is a separate issue and it deserves separate attention in the Finance Bill.
	We cannot choose to deal with one set of injustices in preference to another. Respect is not a zero-sum game, and neither is love. We do not weaken one loving relationship by affording recognition to another. [Interruption.] What is wrong and defensive in the argument advanced by the Christian Institute and others is the apparent suggestion that advancing the rights of what it calls ordinary families requires the condemnation of gay couples and the denial of rights to them. We are getting into a rather undesirable and potentially unpleasant situation when our debates as legislators begin to be swayed by moral lobbying and advertisements from religious pressure groups. Of course, they may choose to condemn homosexuality on the basis of their religious beliefs. We can either agree or disagree with that, but they do not have the right to insist that those beliefs be written into the laws of this country.
	The potential effects of that approach are obvious. Once we translate our prejudices from the realm of private belief —

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Duncan: I may address this matter on Third Reading, if I am allowed, but we shall wait and see.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is at risk of going down a really dangerous avenue if he is suggesting that the Christian Institute is not entitled to express what is a mainstream Christian point of view. It may not be universally held, but it is certainly in the mainstream. His approach is all the more dangerous because our laws are intended to be based on a Christian moral code.

Edward Leigh: They used to be so intended.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) replies, may I say that we are in danger of straying outside the terms of the amendment and going into a Second Reading debate? I do not want to narrow the focus too much, but the debate is becoming a little too general.

Alan Duncan: I heed your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up too much time for fear of stopping other hon. Members speaking.
	The amendments would damage the Bill. They would introduce contradictions and complications that would broadly make it unworkable. They would not, in fact, help the people they purport to help. There are other routes by which improvements in someone's plight can properly be remedied. The route for remedying those difficulties is a Finance Bill, not this Bill. It is up to hon. Members to choose how they will vote, but on that basis I urge them to reject the new clauses and amendments.

Kevin McNamara: I apologise to the House. Because of business of the House, I was unfortunately unable to be present on Second Reading. Because of business of the House, I also came to this debate only when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was speaking.
	I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). He said that people were wrong to try to put into legislation what they felt were their correct beliefs. Yet that is what this Bill does. I am neither for nor against that in this particular matter, but it is what is happening now. He considerably weakened his case by saying that people should not be able, in whatever way, to put into legislation what they believe in. Whether they are old clause IV socialists like me or more like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who would privatise everything in sight, people are entitled—so long as their constituents know where they stand—to put forward their opinions and seek to change legislation.
	I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is no longer in his place. He said that there were two extremes in this debate—those who regard homosexuality as an abomination, and those who think it is part and parcel of life and we should get on with that. I suggest that there is a third group—people who may or not find homosexual relationships acceptable but who believe that the law has no part to play in the matter. I well remember—I think I am the only hon. Member present who did so—voting in favour of Leo Abse's Bill. When I had a more elevated status than I do now, as Opposition defence spokesman, I moved amendments to military discipline legislation that would have resulted in homosexual conduct by members of the armed forces ceasing to be a criminal offence. I remember the serried ranks of the Conservative party voting against them, but when my own party came to power and was reminded of the undertaking that we had given, the Government ran away from it until the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg forced them to act.
	On this matter, then, I think that I am in a position to say that I have a record of seeking not to criminalise people, but I can also say that I do not believe that the creation of a new type of civil relationship for one group alone—a group distinguished from others only by sexual relationship—should discriminate against other people. That, I think, is of the utmost importance.
	We are saying that two people who have a sexual relationship, a commitment and a loving relationship, but who are of the same sex, should have advantages, through registering, over other people who have non-sexual loving relationships and who cannot register or gain any sort of advantage under the Bill. This Bill may not be about marriage—and I regard marriage as the union between a man and a woman—but it will create special relationships with special privileges that are not available to others in our society. Therefore, we must question it.
	I raised with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton the issue of the Finance Act 2004. I apologise to him because the Joint Committee on Human Rights in fact drew attention to the fact that confining the benefit of exemption from paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the parties to a lawful marriage excludes from the scope of the exemption homosexual couples who live together as de facto spouses but are legally unable to marry; heterosexual unmarried couples who live together as de facto spouses; and people sharing a home on the basis of a long-term family relationship that is not a sexual relationship. We drew that to the attention of the House under articles 1 and 8 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. Therefore, the House and the Government were aware of the particular problem that had been created in relation to this matter. Many hon. Members have said that this issue should be dealt with by a Finance Bill. If that is the case, the whole Bill should be dealt with by a Finance Bill. We could then deal with the relationships that I have just mentioned and achieve a degree of equity between them. The Bill will create an unequal situation.
	I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on several occasions to ask him to change "could" to "may" to draw attention to the fact that there are heterosexual relationships in which the parties may not wish to marry for a variety of philosophical reasons that mean that they do not personally feel able to enter into the institution of marriage. I also cited the case of a couple with children, one of whom would dearly love to get married, but the other sees no need to do so. The innocent party—the one who wants to get married or even to enter into a legal relationship—will not benefit because of the attitude of the other. That is wrong. We seek to legislate for equity, and a person in a heterosexual relationship should be able to have the rights in the Bill.

David Cairns: I acknowledge and respect my hon. Friend's long track record on this matter, which he outlined earlier. However, in the example that he has just cited, the couple would be in the position of a same-sex couple who choose not to register their partnership. The implication of what he says is that every same-sex couple should have those rights, but they should have those rights only if they choose to register their partnerships. Not every gay couple will choose to do so, but the fundamental point is that at present same-sex couples have no choice under the law. The couple that my hon. Friend gave as an example have made a philosophical decision and they could change their minds, but the gay couple cannot change their minds because the law discriminates against them as it stands.

Kevin McNamara: I take that point, but we seek to legislate equitably for all the sorts of relationships that may exist. One can imagine a situation in which one member of a gay couple would like to register the partnership but the other refuses to do so, for whatever philosophical reason. The innocent party—the one who wishes to register—would suffer.
	We are taking a piecemeal approach and dealing with one example of an inequitable and unjust situation. By just picking one example, we are not looking at the gamut of relationships that can exist. We are not talking about the registration of a loving relationship. If that were to happen, that would be fine—no problem. What we are really talking about are fiscal, inheritance and property rights and how with deal with those matters in certain relationships.
	The hardship that is often cited relates to the difficulties associated with the relationship between the principal actor in "Yes Minister" and his partner. The same relationship also exists between siblings—brothers and sisters or two daughters—and the only difference is one of sexuality, not of love or companionship. It is not a question of sharing or owning property, which is what the Bill really deals with. If it were merely a question of people registering a relationship, there would be no problem. The other things that follow from the Bill will create inequity in respect of other people's relationships.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend accept that the most crucial aspect of the Bill for most same-sex couples is not tax, nor even inheritance, but the invisibility issue? If the relationship is recognised, the partners are recognised as next of kin. That is the crucial thing for most same-sex couples, and that is what the Bill will give to most of them if they decide to register. Tax, pensions and inheritance mean nothing to many same-sex couples without wealth or high incomes. The key thing is being recognised as a couple and as next of kin, with all the implications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.

Kevin McNamara: I have no objection to the next-of-kin relationship. People are entitled to choose whom they want to represent them one way or the other. That is not the problem. The problem relates to the other things that will follow from the Bill. For that reason, I shall vote for the new clause.

Gerald Howarth: It has become a characteristic of these debates that, despite the fact that there are passionately held views on both sides of the argument, we have nevertheless endeavoured to discuss matters in as relatively amicable a fashion as we can possibly command, given the depth of our feelings.
	I support new clause 1, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and I are party. I make no bones about that. I have made it absolutely clear that I wholly oppose the Bill. It is a profound mistake. Its consequences have been as yet unfathomed by many of those who support it, but fathomed only too clearly by some of those who support it very enthusiastically, and great damage will be done to our country in consequence.
	I have set out my reasons in earlier debates, so I will not rehearse them tonight, but I wish that those who support the Bill and oppose new clause 1 would understand that we are not in the business of wrecking the Bill with the new clause. Would that we could by the new clause wreck the Bill. Sadly, we will not be able to do so. To impute to us the motive that we are using the new clause to wreck the Bill is unfair. [Interruption.] I oppose the Bill, but the new clause is not a mechanism for wrecking it.

Patrick Cormack: Is not anyone who suggests that the new clause would wreck the Bill indirectly criticising the Chair for selecting it?

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is much better versed in such matters than I am. I know that you, with your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have heard the submission that my hon. Friend made. I am sure that he was right.
	Our motivation is the fact that the Bill is transparently unfair. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) rejected Conservative Members' concerns for justice. [Interruption.] Yes, she did. She used the word "injustice" and said that we were not interested in justice during our 18 years in government. Let me remind her that we got rid of the closed shop, we gave people trapped in council houses the right to own their own homes and we relieved people of the tax burden. Those are examples of our concern for justice, which is manifested today in our support for new clause 1. We thus feel that we have every moral right to claim that the motivation behind new clause 1 is a sense of justice because we believe that the Bill is unfair. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that it was profoundly unfair—I have not even used the word "profoundly"—that siblings were suffering to such an extent.
	Let me remind the House of the situation about which we are talking. According to the 2001 census, more than 4.6 million people who live in the same house as another person do not consider themselves to be part of a couple. A number, although not all, of those will be close family members. Many will be siblings of the type set out in the excellent and admirable Christian Institute advertisement in The Times today. I submit that the situation contrasts unfavourably with the Bill's purpose.
	The census estimates that some 80,000 people in this country live in same-sex couples. Baroness Scotland said in the other place that it was likely that 5 to 10 per cent. of eligible people would take up the benefits and privileges set out in the Bill.

Chris Bryant: And responsibilities.

Gerald Howarth: That means that perhaps only 8,000 people in this country will take up the great panoply of the several hundred pages of new law that will be enacted. I entirely accept that the Bill sets out responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says, but it will also create privileges that will be denied to siblings. New clause 1 would confer such privileges. It is grossly unfair that siblings will not be included under the Bill.
	I listened to all the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. He spoke from the Front Bench, but not, I hasten to remind the House, on behalf of the official Opposition—compelling though he was, we have a free vote on the issue. I do not understand why hon. Members proclaim the fact that the Bill will right an injustice and make fair a situation that is currently unfair when they are aware that other examples of unfairness exist. Their only answer to that is, "Wait until the Finance Bill." That is not an adequate response. It sits ill with a Government who profess that they are concerned about human rights and righting an injustice when they deny a pension to the widows of those who married servicemen after they had left military service and who have resisted time and again amendments made in the other place to correct that. It sits ill in their mouths to claim that they are motivated by righting an injustice when there are other manifest unfairnesses. Post-retirement marriages are one example of that, but clearly so too are siblings, as addressed in new clause 1.

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I face an embarrassment des riches. I give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda first.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is generous as only a churchwarden can be.
	Just because there are different injustices does not mean that they all have to be dealt with in one Bill. Injustices in British society affect coal miners, but they should not be inserted in the Bill. There are injustices suffered by disabled people, but they should not be inserted either. The problem is that the amendments do not fit in the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of my other responsibilities at the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot. We shall continue to sing, "I Vow to Thee My Country" despite the observations of some bishops.

Chris Bryant: Put that in the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps I should table an amendment to that effect.
	I reject the argument that the Bill is not the place to deal with the problem. The hon. Gentleman rests on the argument that, because there is an injustice about which he feels strongly, all other injustices should be set on one side until that is sorted out. We believe that our limited new clause sits fairly in the Bill and would not wreck it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made a powerful case to support that. I am afraid to say that I have not heard an argument to suggest that the new clause would wreck it. I accept that there are complexities, but it would not wreck it.
	I do not have the same view of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and cannot support him on that. It is more far-reaching. However, the House should think carefully about how it will be perceived outside if we reject new clause 1, which is a modest measure to assist a particular group of people who may well exceed the number whom it is estimated will take advantage of the panoply of new law that the Bill creates. People will fail to understand why the Government rejected the opportunity to correct deficiencies in the amendments made in the other place by narrowing the definition and why they insisted that one group should benefit from the new rights without encompassing that other group. We should bear it in mind that 84 per cent. of the public who responded to the opinion poll took the view that those people also deserve consideration.

John Bercow: Whatever my hon. Friend may think about the fundamental injustice that his new clause would correct, given that the siblings amendment would by common consent require a radical rewriting of social security legislation, how is it, if he feels so strongly about that, that he and others who think like him did not think it right or prudent to consult the Law Society or the Solicitors Family Law Association about the amendment?

Gerald Howarth: The submissions that I receive from the Law Society are so politically correct that they are not worth reading. They are not written by normal lawyers, but seem to be written by a particular group, probably from the Matrix chambers.

John Bercow: Some of them may even be gay.

Gerald Howarth: That is quite possible. I have long since given up studying submissions from the Law Society. My hon. Friend, however, points out that some people believe that the proposal is not the appropriate way to deal with the problem, which is fair enough. Others, however, believe that it is appropriate, and we are entitled to assert that view and to try to persuade the public that they should not listen to the Law Society but to the Christian Institute and us.
	Many points that I wanted to make have already been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and other hon. Members. The House must think carefully before passing legislation and deliberately forswearing the opportunity to deal with another group of people, possibly a larger one than the group to whom the Bill applies, by excluding them altogether. Finally, whatever the Minister says, the public believe that the Bill is about gay marriage in everything but name. I received a letter from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration about a constituent who wishes to have someone of the same sex admitted to this country so that he can live with him. He told me that the application is being considered and that documentary evidence has been requested to show
	"that he and his partner have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for two years."
	That is what the Home Office said.

Jacqui Smith: The important words are "akin to".

Gerald Howarth: That is the point. The relationship is presented as a parallel to marriage.

Angela Eagle: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) thinks of accepting an intervention from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), I should point out that he is clearly straying into Second Reading and away from the new clause before the House.

Gerald Howarth: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for which, as ever, I am truly grateful. It is only fair, however, to point out that Members who oppose new clause 1 do so because it mucks up their plan for a straightforward gay marriage Bill. That is why they do not want it, and the country will judge them accordingly.

Douglas Hogg: I wish to make only two brief points, as most matters have already been covered in other speeches, including those by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), both of whom I agree with.
	In the course of our debate, many injustices have been highlighted, including arrangements that affect siblings and others such as inheritance tax, the right to statutory tenancies and perhaps the right to pensions. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned the position of next of kin and so on. Clearly, there are a number of injustices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) highlighted, and the House is grateful to him for doing so. I agree, however, with the view powerfully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, who said that those injustices are essentially distinct from the Bill's underlying theme, and should be addressed in other appropriate legislation. Speaking for myself, I would like to abolish or substantially ameliorate inheritance tax, which is wrong in principle for a number of reasons. I do not, however, want to create special exemptions from the burdens of that tax, as that, too, would be wrong in principle. The injustices identified by the House need to be addressed in another measure or measures.
	I now want to pursue my second theme in answer to a challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.I hope that you will forgive me for doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to make a Second Reading speech. When you were not in the Chair, my hon. Friend said in terms that, if it was conceded that this was a "gay marriage Bill", he would not press his amendments. He went on to say that he would concede that his amendments were inappropriate in the context of such a Bill. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not want me to go into a lot of depth about this matter.

John Bercow: Oh go on.

Douglas Hogg: No; I do not want to be called to order. I have had my exchanges before with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to pursue my argument within the rules of order.
	The question is whether what we are doing in this Bill is in substance to create a gay marriage Bill. I believe that that is probably the case, and let me hasten to say that I do not disapprove of that.

Patrick Cormack: Your father would.

Douglas Hogg: I do not think that my father would have done, as a matter of fact. He became more compassionate in his old age—something that I would commend to other hon. Members as well.
	If one asks oneself what marriage is, one sees that it is the recognition by law of a relationship of a continuing kind. Historically, such relationships have been held between men and women, and marriage has been attended by divine service. Of course, that was changed, and we now have civil marriage. I must ask myself what the sensible distinction is in fact and substance between a civil marriage between a man and a women and a legal partnership of the kind contemplated in the Bill. I do not think that there is any significant difference between a civil marriage between a man and a woman and a legal partnership as created by the Bill.
	The purpose of the Bill is not to attach to the relationship the financial and other benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred; it is rather to accord to a couple of homosexuals the right to denote their relationship with legal status. They want to do that, and I do not want to withhold from them that ability. As a matter of fact, I also think that the Church would be right to bless such relationships. [Interruption.] I can hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) expressing her disagreement. She and I have often disagreed on this point, but I think that in a liberal, compassionate world, the Church should be willing to act in that way.

William Cash: I am following what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, but I think that he is taking us into extremely dangerous territory. Does he not agree that there is something fundamentally insidious about introducing a Bill for a purpose that is not achieved under that Bill, but which, one realises on reflection, is an artifice? Basically, that is what this whole process is about.

Douglas Hogg: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he is wrong about this matter. The primary purpose is to accord a relationship within the law and before the law to a long-lasting partnership between people of the same sex. If people of the same sex want to designate their relationship as having that status, they should be able to do so, and the Bill achieves that. It may be—I can understand this view—that he does not want that to be permitted, but that is a difference of principle. I do want it to be permitted, and I ask myself whether the Bill is effective in achieving that, and I feel that it is.
	Incidentally, I feel that I owe an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I was a bit churlish with him in respect of his sedentary intervention about my father, and I hope that he will forgive me. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right when he says that his amendments are inappropriate in the context of a Bill that he described as being about "gay marriage"—I say that it is about partnerships recognised by law—new clause 1 should not stand. In substance, this is a gay marriage Bill, and, in substance, I am in favour of it and am prepared so to designate it.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's gracious apology, which I accept. My right hon. and learned Friend is being totally honest. He supports gay marriage, which is a perfectly defensible point of view, but the Bill purports not to enact gay marriage.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. I criticise Government Front Benchers, because those of us who have examined the Bill and the consequences that it attaches to such relationships find it impossible to make a serious distinction between civil marriage— I emphasise "civil"—and civil partnership. It would be more honest if the Government were to say that the Bill concerns civil marriage between same-sex couples. However—this is the one remark that I shall make that will be wholly popular with Conservative Members—the Government are not honest.

David Borrow: I want to speak for only a few minutes. I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and agree with most of his contribution.
	We must remember why the Bill was introduced in the first place: it recognises same-sex relationships and implements an infrastructure of rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples. It is not about property and taxation, which have formed the primary subjects for debate this afternoon. We are discussing the recognition of same-sex relationships, and the heart of the Bill concerns a lifelong commitment made by two individuals.
	I recognise that the amendments in this group are in order because Mr. Speaker accepted them, but they seek to broaden the number of people affected by the Bill by including, with the exception of heterosexual couples who are not married, people in other sorts of partnerships who do not necessarily make a lifelong commitment to each other, whether they are members of the same family or people in platonic relationships.
	New clause 3 seeks to extend the provisions of the Bill to heterosexual couples who cohabit. Such couples may or may not want to make a lifelong commitment, but I assume that the fact that they have not got married means that they are not yet ready to make such a commitment. Although the arguments about tax and inheritance may have some merit, the amendments to widen the scope of the Bill do not fit neatly and appropriately with the rest of the legislation. Such matters should be examined and dealt with separately because they do not fit the Bill's core, which concerns two people of the same sex making a lifelong public commitment to each other. That is the heart of the Bill; the various clauses simply deal with rights and responsibilities.

Charles Hendry: Much of this afternoon's debate has understandably focused on whether the registration of a civil partnership is the same as marriage, which is a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
	To my mind, we have missed one of the key points. Although the Bill gives rights and confers responsibilities on those who are prepared to enter into civil partnerships, those benefits and rights are not workable without some form of legal registration. We are discussing the transference of property rights and pensions to obtain inheritance tax benefits, and, in the last few days of their life, someone could say, "This is my partner. I would be grateful if the whole of my estate is handed over to them." The only way in which legal changes of such magnitude can be made to work properly is if there is a legal framework that involves people making a legal commitment by saying that the relationship is long-term and having a structure whereby the framework can be broken up if the relationship goes wrong.
	The Bill addresses a very clear injustice—the fact that people are invisible in the eyes of the law if they are living in a same-sex relationship. It is time to correct that injustice. That does not mean, however, that it is appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle for correcting equally valid but disconnected injustices. That can be done on other occasions, and I hope that it will.
	Much of the debate has focused purely on financial matters, yet, as the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) said, the Bill deals with many other injustices. I have mentioned the rights of the next of kin and the inability of people in a relationship to visit their partners in hospital or to make decisions about what happens to their belongings and joint home in the event of the death of one of them. Those issues do not relate to siblings or to people in relationships of other kinds; that is why the Bill should focus primarily on such matters.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) suggested that only small numbers of people may benefit from the Bill. That in itself is no reason for saying that it is not right to act. He and I would campaign together on the rights of Gurkhas or the pension rights of surviving partners of members of the armed forces. The fact that those issues affect only very small numbers of people does not in any way negate the importance of dealing with them, and the Bill must be seen in the same light. I happen to believe that the figure cited for the number of partners who will benefit significantly underestimates the total. In any event, there is a clear injustice and we are right to address it.
	I want to say a few words about new clause 3. The more I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch the more concerned I became. His reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) left us in no doubt that he believes that this will fundamentally undermine marriage. I was also concerned when he started to use the term "holy matrimony". Many of us got married in register offices instead of churches. I, for one, feel every bit as married as anybody who got married in a church. I have a wife, whom I call my wife, we have shared domestic arrangements, and I have a very wonderful mother-in-law.

John Bercow: Send her the speech.

Charles Hendry: I certainly will.
	Those are all benefits that marriage brings; they cannot be linked solely to holy matrimony.
	I was particularly concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that people will opt for this sort of relationship when they are looking for a shorter-term, rather than a longer-term, commitment. That is bizarre. I tried to imagine the scene—two people are in a restaurant, and the man is about to make a proposal. In the candlelight, he gets down on one knee and says, "Darling, we've been together for a very long time now, we've got children and it's working very well—I want to ask you to become my short-term civil partner." In other words: "I love you very much—not enough to say that I want to be with you for ever, but I would like to be with you for several years. We don't have to go to all the expense of getting married, but there is an alternative arrangement—we can have a civil partnership with all the same benefits. You can have the pension and inherit the house in the event of my death." I am not sure whether she would be deeply flattered by that proposal. Had I said that to my wife when I proposed to her, I suspect that she might have walked out of the restaurant. My hon. Friend has not drawn an apt distinction.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that the most romantic people on earth are the French? Yet they have a civil partnership arrangement that is similar to the one that I described. They can either enter into that or get married.

Charles Hendry: I believe that my wife, given the choice between a short-term civil partnership with a romantic Frenchman and a long-term loving marriage with me, would have made the same decision. My proposal was made in a French restaurant, so perhaps one can get the best of both worlds.
	Earlier, I asked about the cost of the amendment. My hon. Friend has tabled a completely uncosted amendment. He talks about the number of people who may benefit from it but asks us to vote for something when we have no idea how many billions it would cost. Although he makes the valid point that one either believes in equality—and accepts that there is an accompanying cost that must be taken into account—or one does not, tabling an amendment, which is described as serious, without being able to tell us how much it would cost, is unfortunate. However, my fundamental objection remains that the amendment undermines the principle of marriage.

Edward Leigh: So my hon. Friend does not share the view of many of us that we should abolish inheritance tax outright?

Charles Hendry: As other hon. Members have said, there are other ways of dealing with that. I would dearly love inheritance tax to be abolished. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald rightly says, that would also benefit homosexual couples. However, it is a separate issue, which can be resolved by a Finance Bill. It does not need to be addressed in the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: We have had a good debate. My hon. Friends have made excellent contributions but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has commented, it has been our pleasure to sit and watch a tableau of—

Angela Eagle: Tory party infighting.

Jacqui Smith: That would be a rather cruel way to characterise it. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that a range of views was expressed.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: I have barely started, but if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Gerald Howarth: At least Conservative Members have freedom of expression and can disagree. We are not under Stalinist control like Labour Members.

Jacqui Smith: I should not have bothered.
	I want to focus attention on the practical effects of the amendments, which would make changes that, as several hon. Members pointed out, would alter the Bill's nature and character. They would introduce a series of discrepancies in the provisions, which would make it unworkable.
	The amendments that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) tabled would allow siblings to form civil partnerships. The amendments that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) tabled would allow unmarried parents and children and unmarried siblings to form such partnerships, as long as they shared a home. He would also extend such provision to cohabiting couples.
	On Second Reading, the Bill received a majority of 377 votes on the basis that earlier amendments, which had the effect of including close family relatives, would be removed. In Committee, we voted 13 to one to remove the amendments. The argument for limiting civil partnership to unrelated same sex couples is clear and compelling and has been rehearsed on many occasions on the Floor of the House and in Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Gainsborough said on Second Reading that the amendments that the House of Lords had passed might be unworkable as they stood. I am happy to agree with him about that. Given that, I find it difficult to accept his reasoning for tabling amendments to reinstate new categories of civil partnerships for siblings. They are no more workable. Indeed, they give rise to new anomalies.
	I do not want to spend an inordinate amount of time reiterating all the detailed arguments about the issue but I want to re-emphasise the clear aim of the Bill. We introduced it with a specific purpose, which is to provide legal recognition for unrelated same-sex couples who do not currently have the option, which is available to opposite-sex couples, to marry. We seek to create a parallel but different legal relationship that mirrors as fully as possible the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by those who can marry, and that uses civil marriage as a template for the processes, rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnership. We are doing this for reasons of equality and social justice.

Douglas Hogg: Would the Minister be good enough to address the question of where the essential difference lies between a civil partnership involving a different-sex couple and a civil partnership involving a same-sex couple? In substance and reality, they are the same, are they not?

Jacqui Smith: As I have just pointed out, we have used civil marriage as the template for creating a completely new legal relationship, that of the civil partnership. We had some discussion about this in Committee, and our view was that, unless there was an objective justification for a difference in the approaches taken to civil marriage and civil partnership, no difference should exist. There are very few areas in which any difference does exist. The whole point, however, is that civil partnership is not civil marriage, for a variety of reasons, such as the traditions and history—religious and otherwise—that accompany marriage. It is not marriage, but it is, in many ways—dare I say it?—akin to marriage. We make no apology for that.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when social reform is needed that might be difficult for some people, the best way forward is not to set one group's rights against those of another so that those groups have a fight, but to proceed in a way that both groups can support? Does she agree also that having civil partnerships rather than challenging people's deeply held views, particularly about religious marriage, is the right way forward in these circumstances?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) let the cat out of the bag when he said that his reason for wanting to call this new relationship a gay marriage was precisely to provoke protest out in the country. We have identified a particular issue, and we want a 21st century legal process to resolve the difficulties involved. That is what we are delivering in the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister tell us to what other same-sex couples the Bill is intended to apply, other than those who are homosexual?

Jacqui Smith: While that is not a criterion in the Bill, I have said clearly on Second Reading—and I intend to say again later—that the particular difficulty identified here involves the thousands of gay and lesbian couples who live together and share their lives, yet have no way of gaining legal recognition for their relationship. I am quite happy to say that, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is somehow a difficult motive to have.
	Civil partnership has not been designed as a legal relationship for people who are related to each other.

Patrick Cormack: I really would welcome it if the right hon. Lady were honest with the House—[Interruption.] The fact is that she is indulging in sophistry. Will she please tell the House what the difference is between a civil partnership, as she defines it, and a gay marriage, as defined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)?

Jacqui Smith: I resent the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have been absolutely open about what the Government intend to do with this new legal relationship. I have been open about the extent to which it replicates the provisions of civil marriage, where there is no objective justification for it not to do so. But it is not marriage. It is a new legal relationship for same-sex couples so that they can have the legal recognition that they cannot currently get.

David Winnick: When this Bill becomes law, does my right hon. Friend believe that any Member, whether Labour or Conservative, will argue in four, five or eight years' time that it should be changed again? As in the case of previous reforms, however controversial, once such a measure becomes law or is widely accepted, there seems to be no wish to change it again.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Clearly, that is because we have identified an injustice for thousands of couples who are sharing their lives and who cannot at the moment find a legal way to have that relationship recognised, and, with that, have the range of rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnerships. That is the justification for this legislation. It is not designed, however, to address the problems for those people who are related to each other. That has been accepted not only by large numbers of Members of the House but by organisations that lobby on behalf of the interests of those people, the Law Society, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Solicitors Family Law Association, the trade union movement, equality groups, carers groups and the leaders of all three main parties in the House.
	These and similar amendments have come in various different guises throughout proceedings on the Bill. At one point, in another place, they were ostensibly concerned with protecting carers. Once Carers UK indicated clearly that not only would they not support carers but positively damage caring relationships in many places, people backed off from that justification. Today, we have heard a new justification; the argument about inheritance tax. That is a reasonable debate, but at a cost of £2.8 billion a year to abolish inheritance tax, hon. Members are right that that would not be one of my top priorities. Nevertheless, they can raise that during consideration of the Finance Bill.
	Neither is it the case that the Government have not recognised that there are particular issues not only for opposite-sex cohabiting couples but for others. The argument remains, however, that this is not the right Bill to address those problems. It is not only the Government who believe that. The Law Commission concluded in its report on home sharers in 2002 that one solution was not possible for all the different permutations of home sharers. It stated:
	"It is not possible . . . to devise a statutory scheme for the ascertainment and quantification of beneficial interests in the   shared home which can operate fairly and evenly across the diversity of domestic circumstances which are now to be encountered."
	The Law Commission recognised that there was not one simple way to approach the matter, as do the Government, and the Bill addresses a particular issue.
	I will move on to the detail of the amendments and take the House on a short tour of the new absurdities that hon. Members have created in relation to their amendments. First, with respect to the arguments about siblings and other family members, to which the amendment of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) extends, of course, siblings and other family members already have legal recognition of their relationships by virtue of the fact that they are related. They do not need legal recognition in the same way that same-sex couples do. Siblings, for example, are already recognised in law, whereas the law often treats the relationships between same-sex couples as invisible. That is the basis of many of the issues that they face, as was rightly identified by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry).
	Secondly, as several hon. Members have mentioned, there is what we could call the Chekhov problem; the three sisters problem. There may be three sisters who live together—

Chris Bryant: With uncle Vanya.

Jacqui Smith: With uncle Vanya—[Laughter.] They may wish to benefit from some of these rights and responsibilities. How are they to decide who forms a civil partnership? What impact would that decision have on internal family decisions and relationships? I do not believe that it could be positive.
	Thirdly—perhaps we should call this the uncle Vanya question—is it only siblings, parents and children who live together in caring relationships? What about a niece who cares for an aunt or a grandson who cares for a grandfather? Why should only siblings, parents and children be singled out for the dubious honour of forming a legal relationship that does not in any case meet the needs of their joint lives?
	Fourthly, as several Members have pointed out, the financial repercussions of the new clauses and amendments render the Bill nonsensical. I am thinking of the effect on both the pension and the benefit provisions.
	The fifth point relates to the introduction of new dissolution procedures for the new categories of civil partnership favoured by the hon. Members for Christchurch and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Under the procedure favoured by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, a dissolution order would be granted without discussion following an application to the court by one of the civil partners. The hon. Gentleman has been quite honest. He has created that new procedure to overcome a problem that we identified on Second Reading; the ridiculousness of expecting two sisters, or a mother and son, to go through a divorce-like process. Nevertheless, a process whereby dissolution is almost immediate involves its own myriad absurdities.
	Were family members to form civil partnerships under the hon. Gentleman's provisions, a decision to end such a partnership could be made by one of them in the space of a few moments. There would be little time in which to think the decision through. There would be cursory notice to be given to the other party, and minimal support for the partner left behind. Leaving a family member—a civil partner—with few protections is as daft as forcing a daughter to undergo a divorce-style procedure with her mother.
	Regardless of how the hon. Gentlemen may seek to include family members, their proposals create legal nonsense after legal nonsense. Let me make this as clear as I can. Family members should not be dealt with in this Bill, and torturing the Bill to make provision for them will not change the fundamental absurdity of including them.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch believes that we should extend the Bill to opposite-sex cohabiting couples. We had some discussion about that on Second Reading and in Committee. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would allow both opposite-sex and same-sex couples to form civil partnerships whether or not they were related in the prohibited degrees, and would also apply to overseas relationships.
	It has been made clear at several stages, both here and in the other place, that the Bill is designed to deal with disadvantages experienced by same-sex couples who cannot marry. Opposite-sex couples have no need of civil partnership, because they can marry. Some Members asked, "What if they do not want or feel able to take on the responsibilities of marriage?" The point has rightly been made that many of the provisions relating to civil partnership are very similar to those relating to civil marriage. I fail to see why someone who was unwilling to take on the responsibilities of civil marriage would want to take on the equivalent responsibilities of civil partnership.
	Either we have the rights and responsibilities, the legal registration process and the dissolution—which people may well reject—or we set up what can only be described as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) described it, "marriage-lite". If anything were likely to undermine the brand of marriage more—if I may employ the free-marketeer language used by the hon. Member for Christchurch—it would be his proposal for the lightweight, easy-in, easy-out relationship that he appears to favour.
	There are serious issues for cohabiting couples. That is why the Government are undertaking not just to advise and educate people about their legal status if they are not married, but to consider how we can ensure that the legal rights currently applying to, for instance, the protection of children in the Children Bill can be better utilised for cohabiting couples than they are now. Also, we will ask the Law Commission to review the law in this area. There is a whole range of ways in which we can and will address these issues.
	The new clauses and amendments seek to change yet again the Bill's fundamental principles. We reject them, because we have a clear view as to what a civil partnership is and whom it is for. Its purpose is to enable legal recognition, respect and dignity for thousands of gay and lesbian couples in this country. A charitable interpretation of the amendments is that they are misguided. They would not improve the position for carers and other family members; arguably, they would damage those relationships, and they cannot address issues of concern to cohabiting opposite sex couples. A less charitable but perhaps more realistic assessment is that, in all their permutations, these are wrecking amendments, supported by those who cannot and will not accept the value of stable gay and lesbian relationships. Whether misguided or mischievous, they are wrong and I hope that the House will reject them.

Edward Leigh: To sum up briefly, I am afraid that the Minister has failed the test that I set her. I gave her a fair offer. I said to her early on in this debate that if she accepted that this was a gay marriage Bill, I would withdraw my amendments. She has told us in her summing up that the Government are using civil marriage as a template for civil partnership. What on earth does that mean? It is pure sophistry, and there is one reason—and one reason only—why the Government are not being honest with this House and with the people. They do not want to affront religious sentiment by creating something called a gay marriage Bill.
	The Bill will become law—we know that—but the fact is that the new clause is not a wrecking amendment, because it would not affect the Bill's substance. I shall tell the Minister what the new clause and this debate have achieved. We now know, because Baroness Scotland told us in another place, that perhaps as few as 5,000 couples—perhaps even just 5,000 people—will benefit from the Bill. Yet we also know that there are 4.5 million people living in relationships who will not be affected by it. The fact is that the Government are creating for homosexual couples a unique state of affairs. Historically, this House has said that the rights of marriage should exist only for marriage because it is a fundamental building block of society. This Government, in a dishonest way, are picking out only one section of the community and giving them unique rights outside marriage.
	We have raised a banner in this debate for those 4.5 million people. Both Labour and Conservative Front Benchers attacked our new clauses and amendments on technical and other grounds; both alluded to the difficulties that would arise in respect of dissolution, even though such principles work perfectly well in France, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made clear, through the PACS system. But there is one difference between the positions of the two Front Benches. A Conservative Government, through a Finance Bill, would right this injustice, which is something that we should be proud of. So although this banner will go down to defeat today, in the long term we are going to win the debate.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 381.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Appeal against refusal of registration authority to find lawful impediment

'(1)   If the registration authority has refused to uphold an objection to a proposed civil partnership the person who made the objection may within 7 days appeal to the Registrar General.
	(2)   On an appeal under this section the Registrar General must either uphold the appeal or direct that a civil partnership schedule be issued.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause would have been dealt with more appropriately in Committee, but the Government so truncated affairs there that 118 clauses, more than 20 schedules and a host of Government amendments were not debated. We have the opportunity to debate it briefly now, however.
	The essence of the new clause is equity, a principle that the Government find hard to understand or accept. Clause 13 provides for a person to object to a proposed civil partnership during the 15-day waiting period following the giving of notice. Clause 14 provides that the relevant registration authority must investigate the objection and cannot issue a civil partnership schedule until it has so investigated. Clause 15 allows proposed civil partners to appeal to the Registrar General, but there is no equivalent right for an objector to appeal against refusal to uphold an objection. My proposal would not build in a significant delay. The new clause says that an appeal would have to be made within seven days, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Government as a reasonable way of introducing a level playing field and a balance that does not exist at present.
	In Committee, the Government said that some of the differences that the Bill will introduce in the civil partnership registration process, by comparison with the registration process for births, marriages and deaths, will anticipate changes to be brought about in the overall registration process. One issue discussed in Committee, however, was the concern that the registration authority will not have to publish the address of proposed civil partners, and proposed civil partners would not even have to register in the area in which they were residing. With those weaknesses in the proposed system, it is all the more important to agree to new clause 4.

Jacqui Smith: First, let me make it clear that the provisions as drafted for the registration process, including any objection, mirror those in place for marriage, which already work well and the Government cannot see any reason to differ from those arrangements. I shall go through the process when an objection is made. In most cases, under the standard procedure, two people would give separate notices of their intention to form a civil partnership to any registration authority. Once those notices have been recorded in the register, the relevant information must be publicised by a variety of appropriate registration authorities. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) implied that that information would not be in the public arena, but it would be publicised by the registration authorities where either of the partners gave notice, and by the registration authorities where either of the partners lived. The information would be widely publicly available.
	Any person who wishes to object to the issuing of a civil partnership schedule in respect of one or both of the proposed civil partners may object to any registration authority during the 15-day waiting period. The objection must be related to a problem with eligibility and must be recorded in the register as soon as possible by the registration authority that receives it. The registration authority to which the first notice of proposed civil partnership was given has the duty to investigate the objection and would notify the proposed civil partners of it. Depending on the nature of the objection, the registration authority would request information relating to the objection from either the proposed civil partners or the objector, giving an appropriate length of time to reply. Should the objection be dismissed, the waiting period would be concluded in the normal way and a civil partnership schedule issued. Should the objection be upheld, the civil partnership schedule would not be issued.
	The basis of the hon. Gentleman's new clause 4 appears to be that somehow there is an equivalence of effect between the objector and the civil partners. I do not accept that equivalence. In particular, we see no reason for providing for the objector to have an appeal against the refusal of the Registrar General to uphold the objection. Civil partnership is a legal relationship between the proposed civil partners, and between that couple and the state. The objector is not a party to that process but essentially acts as an informant to the registration authority. For the purpose of the formation of a civil partnership, he or she is not in dispute with either one of the proposed civil partners and does not require the same right of appeal.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that if the Registrar General has considered the objection and refused it, that judgment would be justiciable if it was thought that he or she had not acted properly or professionally in the matter?

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry, but I missed the word in the middle of that question.

Tim Boswell: If the Registrar General made or was thought to have made a mistake, would it be possible to mount a legal challenge to that decision?

Jacqui Smith: In the final conclusion, it would be possible to submit the Registrar General's decision to judicial review. Therefore, if a legal problem arose regarding an objection, there would be a route to redress.
	The proposed civil partners are in a different position from the objector's. If an objection were upheld, they would be prevented from forming a civil partnership—a fundamental right of theirs should they be eligible. The objector is not being prevented from forming a legal relationship but having their objection accepted or rejected. In that respect, the objector is acting in a similar way to an informant in a benefit fraud case, for example. While they may raise a concern with the relevant Jobcentre Plus agency, they are not in dispute with the person on whom they are informing and it is up to the agency to decide whether to investigate further.
	As I suggested in outlining the process, it is important that the civil partners and the objector be kept informed of the investigation's progress—we would certainly want to ensure, through guidance, that that is the case—but that is far from giving a right of appeal to that objection. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Christchurch that that is neither appropriate nor desirable in such cases.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I am not wholly convinced by what she says. By drawing an analogy with an objector to benefit fraud, she immediately opens the argument that, under the Bill, an objector whose objection is deemed frivolous will be liable to a claim for damages. That is certainly not the situation in relation to frivolous objections to benefit fraud. Having heard what the Minister says, however, and being mindful of the fact that we have only 29 minutes to discuss the rest of the Bill on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Place of registration

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'means' to end of line 40 and insert 'premises which—
	(a)   are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
	(b)   have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 22 to 24.
	Amendment No. 33, in clause 131, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
	'(4A)   In section 10(2) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, for "legitim" substitute "legitim and rights under section 131 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004".'.
	Government amendments Nos. 25 to 27.
	Amendment No. 32, in schedule 20, page 326, line 26, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'United States of America: Massachusetts: same sex marriage or civil union.'. 
		
	
	Government amendment No. 34.

Jacqui Smith: Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24 are a response to the commitment that the Government made in Committee to look again at the definition of religious premises in clause 6, and the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to look at the drafting of clause 93. Those clauses deal with the place where a couple may register as each other's civil partner. The other amendments in this group are largely technical, and I shall turn to them in due course.
	On Second Reading and in Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) expressed concerns about the definition of religious premises in clause 6, and the Government gave an assurance in Committee that we would look again at the issue, and I am pleased to tell the House that we have tabled the amendment to meet his concerns.
	Before I explain the amendment in more detail, it is worth while reiterating to the House that the Government have not changed our policy that civil partnership registration, like the registration of civil marriages, should be wholly secular. We believe that allowing the formation of civil partnerships to take place in religious premises would undermine the public perception of civil partnership as a secular registration procedure and should be avoided. However, as I have said, we are keen to ensure that the statutory definition of religious premises is not unnecessarily restrictive.
	We have listened to the hon. Gentleman's concern that, where a building has ceased to be used for religious purposes—for example, where a former chapel has become a private home or where an old church is now an hotel—there is no good reason why those premises should be caught by the statutory definition of religious premises. However, as I spelt out in Committee, we are also mindful that some buildings that were used as churches or chapels might not be currently in use as places of regular worship. While such buildings are not in use, their character does not change in any material way. They are not solely or mainly used for other, non-religious purposes. For example, it would not be right for a dormant church or chapel—sometimes known as a chapel at ease—to be used as a place for the registration of civil partnerships. Our amendment would ensure that that remains the case and that such buildings would be caught by the definition of religious premises.
	The definition of religious premises in the Bill refers to premises
	"designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes"
	as well as premises
	"in use solely or mainly for religious purposes."
	We have accepted that the first part of the definition is not appropriate because the design of a building should not be relevant when evaluating its purpose and character. The amendment will thus remove that part of the definition.
	The new definition will refer to premises that
	"are used solely or mainly for religious purposes",
	or those that
	"have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes."
	That will ensure that decisions made by registration authorities will be taken by reference to the purposes for which a building is solely or mainly used, or, if it is not in use, by reference to the purposes for which it was last solely or mainly used. Former religious premises with a verifiably different character, by reference to their sole or main use, will not be caught by the new definition, so it will be possible for proposed civil partners to put forward such premises to a local registration authority for its agreement as the place of registration. For example, a former church or chapel that is in use as a private home, hotel, or indeed—in honour of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—gay club on the Charing Cross road will fall outside the new definition. A church or chapel that is disused or closed, but has not, since closing, acquired a sole or main use for purposes other than religious ones will remain within the definition.
	Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24 arise as a direct result of the consideration of the Bill by the Scottish Parliament as part of the Sewel process. On 12 May, the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament questioned whether the provision that is now clause 93(2) was drafted too narrowly. As drafted, the provision precludes from consideration by a local registration authority for civil partnership registration a place where one or more
	"persons are known to meet for public worship or one known to be regarded by persons of a religious faith as a place of reverence."
	The Scottish Parliament was worried that that might preclude from consideration such buildings as a village hall that was used for many purposes, of which only one was religious worship.
	It was made clear in reply to the Scottish Parliament that the policy intention behind clause 93 was to focus the attention of the local registration authority on the primary purpose of a place. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to re-examine the provision in the light of the Scottish Parliament's views, and we have thus tabled the amendments to ensure that the clause follows our policy intention. We believe that the amendments address the justifiable worries of hon. Members while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards against the use of disused religious premises that have not acquired a new sole or main use for civil partnership registration. As such, they strike a careful yet fair balance, and I hope that hon. Members will support them.
	Government amendment No. 22 will alter clause 93 slightly to bring it in line with procedures in Scotland on civil marriage. If the Registrar General for Scotland gives his approval, section 18(2) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 allows a registrar who is authorised to solemnise civil marriages to do so in the registration office of another authorised registrar, or in a place in the district of another authorised registrar in which civil marriages may be carried out. The provision can be used when a local registration authority does not have a registrar available on a specific occasion to conduct a civil marriage, but a neighbouring authority can supply a registrar. It can also be used when a couple want a friend who is a registrar to conduct their marriage, but when that is to take place somewhere other than the registration district in which the friend works. The provisions offer flexibility to the conduct of civil marriages in Scotland, so it is entirely appropriate that similar flexibility should be available for civil partnership registration.
	Government amendments Nos. 25 to 27 are technical amendments that deal with transitional issues that could arise if two people who had registered an overseas relationship in a country or territory outside the UK had dissolved or annulled that relationship, or obtained a legal separation outside the UK, before the Bill came into force. The amendments will ensure that, if a couple dissolved or annulled their overseas relationship before commencement, and if that dissolution or annulment met the requirements for recognition in the UK that would apply if it had taken place after commencement, they would not be civil partners under clause 215, and they thus would not generally be treated as having been civil partners either.
	Clause 215 provides that an overseas relationship that is registered before commencement is to be treated as a civil partnership that has been formed at commencement. Amendment No. 25 will ensure that, if the overseas relationship was dissolved or annulled before commencement, a civil partnership would not be recognised as existing after commencement. However, proposed new subsection (3B) inserted into clause 215 will allow for limited cases in which there are good policy reasons to make an exception to that principle and treat the parties after commencement as having been civil partners who have dissolved or annulled an overseas relationship. In particular, schedules 7, 11 and 17 allow the parties to an overseas dissolution, annulment or legal separation to apply to the courts in the UK for financial relief in certain circumstances.
	Proposed new subsection (3B) also provides for flexibility by enabling an order to be made under clause 259 to specify additional provisions for the purpose of which the parties are to be treated as having been civil partners, subject to any modifications prescribed in the order. There may be other provisions that it would be right to apply to parties who have been in a past overseas relationship.
	Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 make it clear that the provisions in chapter 3 of part 5 allow an overseas dissolution, annulment or legal separation to be recognised under that chapter even if it took place before commencement. They ensure that the provisions relating to the recognition of overseas relationships and overseas dissolutions deal adequately with pre-commencement events, and that only those provisions which it is appropriate to apply to relationships that were dissolved prior to commencement do apply.
	Those technical amendments put the Bill into better order. They also recognise concerns of hon. Members about the definition of religious premises and strike a fair balance. I hope that the House will accept them.

Tim Boswell: The House will appreciate that, as a result of other duties, I was unable to have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, although I have read its proceedings.
	On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), may I express our gratitude for the change set out in amendment No. 21? It will tie the prohibition on the use of church premises not to their design, but to their main use or immediate past use. That is realistic. We also have no objection to the other Government amendments. I was interested to hear about the greater flexibility in Scotland. One concern about the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was that some registrars might have objections of conscience—a concern that was expressed strongly by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). We were assured that alternative arrangements could be made if registrars were concerned about people's status.
	As I flagged up on Second Reading, it is important that the Minister has proper regard to private international law and the harmonisation of jurisdictions abroad. Although I did not participate in the debate on the main group of amendments, it is clear that a large number of western countries have introduced similar provisions for civil partnerships.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about what would happen if a registrar did not want to perform a civil partnership registration. I am sure that he is not resiling from the belief that every local authority in the land should none the less be required to make provision so that partners who want to have a civil partnership can do so.

Tim Boswell: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Of course, there is no point in supporting the Bill unless we are prepared to put it into effect. My reservations specifically concerned the remarriage of transgendered individuals, who constitute a small but significant subset.
	It is important to harmonise private international law and make those arrangements functional so that they meet a need here and in other countries. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will make his own case for the amendments that he tabled. Some of them are probing, but from private soundings I believe that they offer sensible proposals, so I hope that the Minister will consider them.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall speak to amendment No. 32, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Amendment No. 33, which we also tabled, achieves exactly the same aim as Government amendment No. 34, so I shall not press it further.
	Amendment No. 32 would add the commonwealth of Massachusetts to schedule 20, so that same-sex marriages registered there are recognised in this country. There was concern about whether the legislation introducing those relationships would fall foul of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in the United States, but the position been settled with the Goodridge case, which was heard in the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. It is unfair and unnecessary to leave gay and lesbian partners who have registered lawfully under Massachusetts legislation in doubt about what will happen when the Bill comes into force in the UK. There is no good reason for excluding the commonwealth of Massachusetts from schedule 20, so I look forward to the Minister's response.
	Two letters have been circulated among hon. Members, including one dated 3 June 2004 from members of the Massachusetts state legislature and the general court. I will not read it out in its entirety, but the last sentence of a letter signed by senators and state representatives says:
	"If the United Kingdom does not recognize these relationships, families will be hurt if they decide to relocate from Massachusetts to the United Kingdom."
	Similarly, a letter dated 29 September 2004 from Members of the US Congress concludes:
	"When couples decide to move to the United Kingdom from Massachusetts, they should have the security of knowing that they will enjoy even the most basic benefits, like hospital visitation. We hope you will agree that the exclusion of couples, whose respective state governments have recognized their right to enjoy the same benefits outlined in the civil partnership bill, leaves them in doubt about how their relationship will be viewed when this bill becomes law sometime next year."

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that caution is advisable in pursuing that line of argument, given that a number of American states have recently held referendums in which, by an overwhelming vote, people have urged constitutional changes at state level so that marriage can be recognised only between men and women? The country has not yet resolved the dilemma thrown up by people who have an arrangement in one state but then move to another. His argument that we should make special provision for Massachusetts when even other states of the union have not done so is thin.

Alistair Carmichael: I would not wish to second-guess the right hon. Gentleman, as I do not know how familiar he is with the terms of schedule 20. However, it already lists the state of Vermont, so it would be inconsistent to recognise civil partnerships or same-sex marriages from Vermont but not from the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
	We never know what is going to happen in another country and we have little control over such matters, but it would be remiss of us to fail to act simply in anticipation of something that might or might not happen at a future date.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made clear, amendment No. 32 seeks to add same-sex marriage or civil union in Massachusetts to schedule 20.
	Perhaps it would be worth reminding hon. Members that we have taken a belt-and-braces approach to the international recognition provisions in the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have listed in schedule 20 those foreign civil partnership-type arrangements that would be recognised in the UK, but we have also made clear in clause 214 a set of general conditions that, if fulfilled, would also lead to recognition of a relationship. He is proposing that we should include Massachusetts in schedule 20 at this point.
	It was made clear by my noble Friends in another place that we do not consider it appropriate to add Massachusetts to schedule 20 at this stage, and we remain of that view. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was not originally included in the schedule because, when it was drafted, it remained uncertain whether the Massachusetts legislature would allow such marriages to go ahead. Hon. Members may be aware that the first same-sex marriages were conducted on 17 May this year, and those marriages continue to be legally valid in that state.
	Hon. Members will also be aware, however, that the long-term future of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts remains unclear because of the controversy that surrounds the issue. The Massachusetts legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage in Massachusetts to opposite-sex couples and instead establish civil unions. The amendment would need to be passed again by the state legislature in 2005 and then approved by the voters in a 2006 state-wide referendum before it could be passed. It is clear that the intention of law makers to prevent same-sex marriages in Massachusetts from continuing to be legally valid means that the situation there is still not stable and could change relatively soon. With the law being subject to such uncertainty, the inclusion now of Massachusetts in schedule 20 would be premature.
	None the less, I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the individual position of people who have entered into same-sex marriages in Massachusetts up to this point, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance. I should like to make it clear to hon. Members that not adding Massachusetts to the schedule now does not mean that same-sex couples who have a legally valid marriage there will not be treated as civil partners in the UK. The general conditions in clause 214 already ensure that such couples will be treated as civil partners. The general conditions are, however, also sufficiently flexible to deal with the prospect of subsequent legislation altering the situation in Massachusetts. We therefore see no need to add those marriages to the schedule.

Alistair Carmichael: It might assist if the Minister could give me an assurance that, as it will be some time before the Bill comes into force, presuming that it will eventually be passed, the Government will keep this matter under review and see by the time it takes effect whether it might be possible to add Massachusetts at a later date by statutory instrument.

Jacqui Smith: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Of course, it will not only be the situation in Massachusetts that we keep under review. As hon. Members have made clear, there are many other legislatures, whether in the United States, Europe or more widely, that are also considering such a move. It is in order to ensure certainty for couples who have entered a relationship that would fulfil the general conditions in clause 214 while also having clarity about the legislative arrangements in schedule 20 that we have the twin-track approach, which I hope gives him and the people of Massachusetts the assurance that our Bill is flexible enough to recognise both the individual situation of couples and the ongoing legislative position, which is rather more in a state of flux.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about Government amendment No. 34, which fulfils the same function as his amendment No. 33. I congratulate him on his understanding of Scots succession law, although I will not test him on it.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49
	 — 
	Grounds on which civil partnership is void

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 22, at end insert
	', or
	(d)   the necessary declaration under section 8 includes a false statement relating to the qualifying condition under Schedule 23.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 31, in clause 210, page 101, line 39 at end insert—
	'(6)   Where the conditions in subsection (2) are met but one of the proposed civil partners is not a United Kingdom national the two proposed civil partners may choose—
	(a)   to register in prescribed countries or territories outside the United Kingdom, or
	(b)   to register as civil partners within the United Kingdom, for which purpose, when required, an appropriate visa will be issued to the proposed partner who is not a United Kingdom national.'.

Christopher Chope: Amendment No. 11 would bring the Bill into line with where the Minister thought that it was in Committee. It would mean that a false statement made to enter into a civil partnership in order to avoid immigration control would render that partnership void. Surely a false statement to avoid immigration control should be a ground on which a civil partnership is rendered void, along with the other grounds set out in clause 49. One of those grounds is that the partners were not eligible to register as civil partners under chapter 1, and surely that is analogous to a situation in which one of the parties makes a false statement to avoid immigration control.
	The Government obviously thought that that provision was included in the Bill. The Minister was gracious enough to write to members of the Committee explaining that her understanding had been wrong. I tabled the amendment so that the Bill can now reflect what she thought was the proper position. She said that she thought that she had made an unintentional error, and this is an opportunity for the Government to put that right.

Alistair Carmichael: I rise to speak to amendment No. 31, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). The amendment's purpose is to allow the Minister to place on the record whether the Government will allow something akin to what is known informally as a fiancée visa, so that people who come to the United Kingdom and who anticipate entering a civil partnership agreement will be allowed a visa to enable them to do so.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. It provides that a civil partnership would be void if a declaration made under clause 8 contained a false statement relating to the qualifying condition in schedule 23. I reiterate that I was wrong and that a civil partnership would not be void in that situation. Clause 8 requires a declaration to be made, but no legal impediment exists to the formation of a civil partnership. Each of the proposed civil partners must have a usual place of residence in England or Wales for at least seven days before giving notice.
	Schedule 23 provides that where one of the proposed civil partners is subject to immigration control, the declaration under clause 8 must also include a statement that the qualifying condition is satisfied. The qualifying condition would be satisfied where a person subject to immigration control has an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling him or her to form a civil partnership in the United Kingdom.
	I shall quickly skip to amendment No. 31. The provision is equivalent to what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described as a fiancée visa, so I can give him that assurance.

Christopher Chope: In the short time that remains, can the Minister explain why a false statement would not render a partnership void?

Jacqui Smith: Our approach is appropriate. If one makes a false statement about the declaration, one should be subject to the offences in clause 80. If one uses false documents in order to prove a particular point, one should be subject to forgery and counterfeiting legislation. If a civil partnership does not appear to be genuine—for example, the partners may not intend to live together permanently as civil partners—any existing leave to remain in the United Kingdom granted on the basis of that civil partnership might be curtailed, and any future application for leave to remain on that basis might be refused under the immigration rules. Those seem to me to be the appropriate penalties, as opposed to the uncertainty that could arise from saying that this is grounds for voiding a civil partnership that might, of course, have been in existence for a considerable period at the point at which—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [12 October].
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [12 October].

Clause 93
	 — 
	Place Of Registration

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 44, line 7, at end insert—
	'(   )   The place of registration may, if the approval of the Registrar General is obtained, be outwith the district of the authorised registrar carrying out the registration.'.
	No. 23, in page 44, line 8, leave out from 'be' to end of line 10 and insert
	'in religious premises, that is to say in premises which—
	(a)   are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
	(b)   have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.'.
	No. 24, in page 44, line 12, leave out
	'; and "known" means known to the local registration authority'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 215
	 — 
	Overseas relationships treated as civil partnerships: the general rule

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 104, line 4, at end insert—
	'(3A)   But if—
	(a)   before this section comes into force, a dissolution or annulment of the overseas relationship was obtained outside the United Kingdom, and
	(b)   the dissolution or annulment would be recognised under Chapter 3 if the overseas relationship had been treated as a civil partnership at the time of the dissolution or annulment,
	subsection (3) does not apply and subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsection (3B).
	(3B)   The overseas relationship is not to be treated as having been a civil partnership for the purposes of any provisions except—
	(a)   Schedules 7, 11 and 17 (financial relief in United Kingdom after dissolution or annulment obtained outside the United Kingdom);
	(b)   such provisions as are specified (with or without modifications) in an order under section 259;
	(c)   Chapter 3 (so far as necessary for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b)).'.—[Jacqui Smith]

Clause 219
	 — 
	Power to make provision corresponding to EC Regulation 2201/2003

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 106, line 9, at end insert—
	'(   )   The regulations may make provision under subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) which applies even if the date of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation is earlier than the date on which this section comes into force.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 234
	 — 
	Recognition in the UK of overseas dissolution, annulment or separation

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 112, line 27, at end insert
	'(whether before or after this section comes into force)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 255
	 — 
	Power to amend enactments relating to pensions

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 125, line 29, at end insert
	', and
	(b)   may be made with a view to ensuring that pensions, allowances or gratuities take account of rights which accrued, service which occurred or any other circumstances which existed before the passing of this Act.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 28
	 — 
	Consequential amendments: Scotland

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 396, line 21, at end insert—
	  'In section 10(2) (calculation of legal rights), for "jus relicti, jus relictae or legitim" substitute "legal rights".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
	  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Civil Partnerships Bill marks an important stage in the ongoing progress towards equality for lesbian and gay people. Over recent years we have seen legislative and cultural changes that mark the growing confidence and maturity of our civil society. We have removed laws that stigmatised and excluded lesbian, gay and bisexual people from full involvement in the life of the nation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) rightly observed, just when we may feel that progress is being made, we are confronted with events that remind us, in the most appalling ways, of how much more is to be done. Incidents such as the senseless murder of David Morley, a survivor of the bomb attack on the Admiral Duncan pub, and another recent attack in which a man was stabbed on his way home from a night out, apparently simply because he was gay, demonstrate that we must continue to combat prejudice and hatred wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.
	The way in which we legislate and conduct our discussions in this House sends an important signal about the respect and recognition that is due to lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Minister will accept unreservedly that those of us who oppose the Bill, however passionately, in no way condone any of the actions to which she referred. We find it as outrageous and unacceptable as she does, and I hope that she would not try to persuade the House that we were complicit in the horrendous actions that have taken place.

Jacqui Smith: I certainly would not, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
	The fact that we have introduced the Bill and will, I hope, pass it into legislation, sends a very important message about the respect in which we, as a country and as individuals, hold the many people in this country who are in long-term same-sex relationships. I have always argued that the Bill is not only about dealing with the considerable day-to-day practical and legal difficulties involved in those relationships, but is a manifestation of the respect and dignity that we give to them.
	This new legal relationship comes with both rights and responsibilities, and the Bill sends out a clear message about the importance of stable and committed relationships. It will enshrine in law a comprehensive structure through which same-sex couples can form a civil partnership and make provision for organising their joint lives together.
	Most of the time, our debates on the Bill have shown the House at its best. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken with intelligence, thoughtfulness and temperance. I believe that we have listened to hon. Members' concerns and, when appropriate, sought to amend the Bill to tackle them. On the whole, the process has been constructive, due to various hon. Members' contributions. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for her contribution and the important issues that she has tackled, including those that relate to Scotland. I assure hon. Members that she has a close and intimate knowledge of Scottish succession legislation. I put on record my appreciation of the work in another place of Baroness Scotland, Baroness Hollis, Baroness Amos, Baroness Crawley, Lord Filkin and Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.
	I thank hon. Members of all parties who have made an important contribution to the scrutiny of the Bill. The mature and constructive approach of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—perhaps I should call him Mr. December—is a credit to him and, I hope, to his party. The hon. Gentleman was unfortunately not in his place when the Government amendment on religious premises was agreed earlier. It is therefore worth while to put on record again that it arose from discussions that he in particular prompted.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has on every occasion actively supported the Government's commitment to reject amendments that would have rendered the Bill unworkable. He has been diligent in his attendance and his contributions.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made thoughtful contributions and has played an important role in consideration of the Bill.
	I want to place on record my appreciation of all my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and perhaps especially of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Wallasey, who have ensured an informed and passionate debate inside and outside the Chamber. They brought all the force of their argument to bear in the discussions, which led to a Government amendment that was agreed today and will ensure fair and equitable pensions treatment for civil partners.
	I thank our Committee Chairmen for the excellent way in which they chaired our proceedings, the parliamentary officials who served during the Bill's passage and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who played an important role in ensuring that we kept to order.

Gerald Howarth: And the returning officer.

Jacqui Smith: That was a churlish intervention.
	The Bill has taken some time to develop and, throughout, it has had the benefit of the work of an extraordinarily dedicated and proficient group of officials. They deserve congratulations.

Patrick Cormack: In a spirit of conciliation, will the Minister also pay tribute to those who have honourably opposed the Bill and are not in any way at odds with her comments about the community who will benefit but simply believe that the measure is the wrong way to proceed? Some of us have not been able to take a great part in the proceedings but my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) deserve the thanks of the House for the dignity and force with which they have advanced arguments that many people support. Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that?

Jacqui Smith: I acknowledge that they have put their case strongly.
	As the Bill leaves the House, it is complete and comprehensive, wide-ranging and detailed. It is carefully drafted and its clauses are tightly interwoven.
	It is indeed ground-breaking, in that it is the first Bill of its kind to include comprehensive international recognition provisions that could be used as a template by other countries in the years to come. The Bill also provides equality in pension rights.
	This is a Bill to be proud of and this House has done an excellent job in salvaging it from the unfortunate state in which it arrived here. It is perhaps no surprise that it has received massive support from the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities. What is truly heartening, however, is the level of support that has come from the population at large—from trade unions, religious groups, legal experts, groups such as Age Concern and Carers UK, and the hundreds of individuals who have written to express their delight that, at last, an important injustice is being addressed.
	Many same-sex couples will be very keen to avail themselves of the Bill's provisions, once they come into effect. It is expected that the Act will take effect roughly a year after Royal Assent, to enable the necessary secondary legislation to be introduced and other operational changes to be made. I have no doubt that many people will want to take advantage of its provisions at that point. Many of us who are married know well how our lives have been enriched beyond measure by the support of our husbands and wives. Indeed, our achievements are all the greater and all the more enjoyable because we have someone to share them with. Our lesbian and gay family members, colleagues and friends deserve an equivalent chance, and they deserve the current legal injustices to be put right. The Civil Partnership Bill remedies those injustices and provides that opportunity, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: May I echo the Minister's comments and thank her and her fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) for the courtesy with which they have conducted all our proceedings throughout the passage of the Bill? I also echo her thanks to the civil servants and to the Chairmen of the Committee, singling out in particular the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who returned from having a hospital operation and, despite being in considerable pain, continued to chair our Committee.
	I should like to turn my attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) urged the Minister to do, to those who disagree with the Bill. Democracy involves the settling of difference by decent means, and I should like to express my respect for the manner in which those who have opposed the Bill, or elements of it—most, if not all, of whom are sitting behind me—have expressed that difference. Out of that respect, I should like to address the overarching religious objections that have been voiced throughout the passage of the Bill.
	Over the centuries, political difference has been defined by various distinct positions: Church and state; Crown and people; rich and poor; left and right; pro and anti-Europe; wets and drys. However, rising nearer to the top of our political deliberations once again is the distinction between libertarian and authoritarian strands of thought. One strand of that debate involves the question of whether it is right for the state to use its supposed power to shape a moral template and to impose it on a country through the force of law.
	The recent presidential election in the United States has sparked a debate about whether moral values are an electoral force that can be harnessed for the national and political good, and whether they mean the same thing in the United Kingdom as they do in the United States. We might set ourselves the task of comparing and contrasting the effects of moral opinion on the democratic process in the US and the UK. We have already seen some fairly manic articles on the subject, in which writers on each side of the argument have wilfully misconstrued the position of those on the other side. Each side deserves more respect from the other.
	The Bill, with its merits and demerits, lies at the very heart of that debate. Is the change that it offers a threat to the traditional decencies of our way of life, and something that puts the moral fabric of our society at risk? Or is it an overdue recognition of how any society, as it inevitably changes, needs to embrace adjusted patterns of life and behaviour to suit the wishes of people whose qualities and conduct are no less and no more decent than those who readily fit into established mores? At the very least, the entire House, male and—if my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will take it the right way—even female behind me, would agree that we have moved on from the view of the Emperor Justinian, who thought that homosexuality was a cause of earthquakes.
	This debate, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) alluded earlier, was raging 40 years ago in the House. "Law, Liberty and Morality", by H. L. A. Hart, was a seminal lecture given in the early 1960s. It influenced my views on the subject that we are debating today. It provoked a blistering riposte from a Law Lord, Paddy Devlin, entitled "The Enforcement of Morals", which, in turn, in an attempt to mediate through a more churchly eye, led to Basil Mitchell's "Law, Morality and Religion in a Secular Society".

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Duncan: I will give way once, of course.

Ann Widdecombe: I therefore promise not to trespass on my hon. Friend's time twice. He is talking about the state enforcing morality. Nothing will change if the Bill is not passed, inasmuch as two people of the same sex will still be free to enter into a relationship, to set up a household and all the rest of it. Nothing will alter that. The only alteration will be that what is now unique—marriage and the rights and responsibilities that the law accords to marriage—will for the first time be given to one specific group in our community other than the married. That is the essence of this Bill, not anything to do with whether people should be free to practise homosexuality.

Alan Duncan: But the fundamental premise of my right hon. Friend's comments is that there is a moral distinction to be made, which means that there should not be recognition of same-sex partnerships. If I may, let me trace my argument through, as I am trying to dignify her views with what I hope is seen as a thoughtful response; at the very least, I am making an effort to do so.
	H. L. A. Hart, taking a more liberal stand, put the question of whether the state should adopt what he termed "physical paternalism", and asked
	"is the fact that certain conduct"—
	perhaps this answers the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald—
	"is by common standards immoral sufficient to justify making that conduct punishable by law?"
	Or, in this case, is it sufficient simply to make it not permitted or recognised? Indeed, he asked,
	"is it morally permissible to enforce morality as such?"
	Patrick Devlin, on the other hand, believed that one could justify the use of the criminal law—in this case, any law—to punish deviations from a society's shared morality.
	Recognition of homosexual relationships in the 40 years since that classic exchange has become part of this and many other countries' shared morality. Indeed, John Stuart Mill had already set the calculus for our judgments. He said that society could use its powers to protect morality, but by that he meant stopping people doing harm to others. There is no greater harm than the brutal killing, to which the Minister referred, of David Morley, in a homophobic attack, just two weeks ago, a few hundred yards from the House.
	This Bill does not do anybody harm. Those who believe in God, and yet believe too in opposing the Bill, risk being seen by others as people who are using the name of God to promote their own earthly dislikes. Faith in God, and one's ensuing conduct, are undeniably matters of personal choice and individual conviction. Being forced to do something does not make one moral. It might make one conform to certain moral norms, but only a decision that is taken entirely freely can be totally moral. Conversely, being gay is not a matter of choice. A natural disposition, which does no harm to others, cannot be immoral, however much it might be intensely despised by some.
	In "Law, Morality and Religion", Basil Mitchell observed:
	"The new liberalism"—
	which perhaps many here do not like—
	"is based on a fundamental distinction between a social morality which is thought of as a necessary condition of any viable society, and a morality of personal ideals which are for individuals to choose."
	The Bill allows the latter.
	In the same exchange, Devlin said
	"If Christianity is true, it should illuminate precisely those human needs which men are found in experience to have, and this is not by accident but because the God of revelation is also the God of nature."
	Condemnation of gay relationships therefore risks being thoroughly unchristian, and barely hidden disdain combined with professed indifference is the most contemptible attitude of all. The role of the state is to intervene when two people are doing harm to each other, not when they just happen to love each other.
	In my view, the Bill is a landmark in the clash between those who want to enforce their own moral code and choose to judge their fellow man and those who say that a couple's mutual love should be permitted and celebrated without the intrusion and interference of the state. We are supposed to be here to build a happier country. If we are to build a monument to decency, fairness, love, equality and all the rich happiness that two people can provide for each other, the Bill should be passed as a cornerstone of the very monument that we want to build.

Angela Eagle: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and to compliment him on his quick philosophical round-up of important social and political issues. I agree with his interpretation of the effects of the Bill.
	I welcome this sensible piece of social reform. It recognises that we have moved on socially, and if it is passed it will grant an acknowledgement of the dignity and respect that should be conferred on same-sex couples as well as legal recognition of their relationships should they choose to enter into civil partnerships. It means that the United Kingdom is moving into the mainstream of social reform across the world, as many of us pointed out on Second Reading.
	I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, along with Members on both sides of the House. I believe that scrutiny and consideration hugely improved the Bill, which was a mess when it arrived from the House of Lords. The removal of the Lords' wrecking amendments, which effectively would have allowed grandmothers to have a relationship akin to marriage with their grandsons or granddaughters, was essential to prevent this House from becoming a laughing stock.
	A significant advance made in Committee, albeit one less commented on than others, was the Government's decision to grant full pension equality to same-sex couples and allow them to benefit from the contributions that many had made on the same basis as that applying to widows and widowers in the case of both state and private occupational pension schemes.
	I asked my hon. Friend the Minister about that on Second Reading, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said rather cynically that she was just trying to get through the debate. He did not know about some of the meetings that had been taking place behind the scenes to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I considered a very just cause. I for one was extremely pleased when, at the end of Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was able to grant the first part of our wish—full pension equality in state occupational schemes—thus, I hope, banishing the cynicism of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for ever. In Committee, we were able finally to iron out this issue by eliminating an existing anomaly in private sector pension schemes as well. So the Bill is now ready for the statute book, and I hope that when it returns to the other place shortly, the Lords will respect the large majorities by which it has proceeded through the various Commons stages.
	The other very interesting and enjoyable aspect of the process was the spectacle of the Conservatives dealing with the Bill in Committee on a free vote. That prompted some extremely good speeches and passionate argument, but it also demonstrated the Janus face of the Conservative party, which I mentioned on Second Reading. Little did I realise quite how many facets that face has. The four Conservative Members in Committee proceeded in very different ways; in fact, they were all over the place, which is perhaps what free votes do.
	After decades of reinforcing every prejudice, playing on every fear and creating legislation such as the odious section 28, there are welcome signs of movement among the Conservatives. Thankfully, a much more enlightened and humane element is emerging, and their support for the Bill is welcome. Particular mention should be made of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who made an extremely good speech. The hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Wealden (Charles Hendry) made superb speeches on Second Reading, demonstrating this strand of conservatism and, hopefully, its emerging strength.
	But for each enlightened, tolerant and respectful speech, the narrow-minded right-wing element of the Conservative party voiced its backward view of the world. In Committee, we had a quite extraordinary spectacle. In general, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton supported the Bill with a great deal of erudition and passion. However, he refused to vote to include its first 80 clauses in Committee—

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What on earth has this got to do with the merits of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Angela Eagle: I am simply attempting, Madam Deputy Speaker, to report to the House some of our proceedings in Committee; that is a perfectly usual way of dealing with Third Reading debates.

Alan Duncan: I should it put on the record that I did not vote for some 80 clauses in Committee because they were being forced through on the guillotine with no debate. I thought it better to abstain, in order to make it quite clear that I do not approve of such timetable motions.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman can of course do what he likes with his vote, especially when his party has a free vote. But he knows that the practical effect of that vote in Committee could have been to destroy the Bill, and I hope and pray that that was not his intention. The Whip in Committee, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), mostly abstained but sometimes voted against the Bill. The altogether more predictable hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) ploughed his lonely furrow of total opposition, never losing a chance to belittle, denigrate and trivialise same-sex partners and civil partnerships. When he was not attempting to change the Bill to require same-sex couples to register—

John Hayes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your ruling in this regard, but it seems to me that this is a speech analysing Conservative thinking on a range of subjects, including this one, rather than a Third Reading speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier. The hon. Lady is recalling incidents throughout the Bill's passage in the Chamber and in Committee.

Angela Eagle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was part of the nature of debates on Third Reading that we look back on our proceedings. I am merely pointing out that the four Conservative Members serving on the Bill in Committee all did different things.
	Of those four, I move on to the best, the hon. Member for Buckingham. Unlike some of his colleagues, he was steadfast, brave and principled throughout the Committee stage; he argued constantly and passionately in favour of the Bill from start to finish. I congratulate him on his open-minded humanity, but he faces a long and uphill battle with his crusade to make the Conservative party begin to remake itself as compassionate and humane. I wish him and his other colleagues in the fight all the best for the future.
	Meanwhile, we have a Bill that is as near perfect as possible, following its Committee and Report stage. I welcome the huge endorsement that the Bill gained on Second Reading, when it was passed by 423 votes to 49 and I caution the other place against further interference in the Bill. I look forward to its commencement next year. Many people are already planning what I know will be joyous celebrations of their civil partnerships in due course when the Bill comes into force and civil partnerships become a reality for same-sex couples who have longed for many years to have that opportunity.

Alistair Carmichael: First, I associate myself with the expressions of gratitude made earlier by the Minister and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in respect of House and Committee officials who have assisted the Bill's passage to its current stage. The Minister said that the process has been constructive, and I would certainly want to use the same word. I pay tribute to the Minister, particularly for the manner in which she has handled changes to the pension provisions. As a Liberal Democrat, I am delighted to welcome them.
	I am pleased that my cynicism, or perhaps my scepticism, has made such an impression on the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). She asked whether it has been banished for ever, which sounds like the sort of optimism usually expressed by Liberal Democrats, but let us say that it is banished for tonight.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said in an earlier intervention that if we do not pass the Bill, nothing will change. From my perspective, I have to say that that is exactly why we should pass the Bill, because if we do not pass it, nothing will change. Mixed-sex couples will still, to borrow the Minister's phrase, remain "largely invisible" within the eyes of the law and people will continue to suffer discrimination and disadvantage simply because of their sexual orientation. To my mind, that is simply wrong.
	The hon. Member for Wallasey spoke about the House leading the world and being at the forefront of these issues, but I believe that we are engaged in a catching-up process. It is all about recognition of our society, as currently constituted and as it has been for some time.
	Several hon. Members have urged us to admit that we are talking about gay marriage, but I cannot admit that because, as I explained earlier, marriage is something uniquely given to mixed-sex couples. What flows from that is recognition of the marriage relationship, which, in turn, brings certain financial and property rights. Having said that same-sex couples cannot be party to a marriage, I believe that they are obviously entitled to the same recognition and the same rights of property as married people are granted.
	I often wonder why some Conservative Back Benchers are so obsessed with the use of the "M" word, if I may put it that way. The only conclusion that I can draw is that they argue that way deliberately, knowing that the issue becomes emotive and that, by talking that way, they stand a better chance of stirring up opposition and antipathy towards the giving of these basic rights to certain groups of people. I therefore believe that the Government are correct to refer to "civil partnerships" and to leave it at that.
	I also have to say that this morning's intervention by the Christian Institute was profoundly regrettable. I shall choose my words with care, but I have been a Christian since I was 14. Christianity has been a formative influence for me and has changed my life, but there are few less edifying spectacles than politicians who preach, so I shall keep this simple.
	To my mind, the fundamental factor in Christianity is love. The tremendous thing about Christian love is that it knows no discrimination. That is why, when Jesus told us in the New Testament to love our neighbour, he did not qualify that by saying that we need not love those of our neighbours who are black, gay, fat, thin, tall or short. There are no equivocations about the love that Jesus offers us. That is why I feel passionately that it would be wrong for us to prolong, in the name of Christianity, the discrimination and disadvantage that some people suffer.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it can be an act of love to point out when someone is going wrong. With all due respect, I point out to him that there is discrimination against siblings in this country. In my opinion, the Christian Institute was right to make that clear. I regret that the hon. Gentleman considers that the brothers and sisters who live together and who suffer disadvantage in the way that was described in the previous debate need not benefit from this legislation in the way that homosexual couples—uniquely—will.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman began his intervention on a false premise by saying that it was an act of love to point out to people when they were "going wrong". That suggests that a person's sexual orientation is a matter of choice. It is not: it is something with which one is born. Homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals are no more "going wrong" than any other people who choose to follow their particular sexual orientation.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: What about paedophiles?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman also asked about my position in respect of siblings. We have rehearsed those arguments at considerable length today. If he was in the Chamber to hear my earlier remarks, he will have heard my opinions already; if he was not here at that time, he can read them tomorrow morning in Hansard.
	It is rare to be able to say at the end of a Third Reading debate that the legislation will leave us in a better condition than when it arrived in this House, but that is very much the case today. I hope that our noble Friends in the other place will realise that the Bill enjoys the overwhelming support of this House. Although some minor tinkering may remain to be done—and we will always be open to that—we do not expect to see any significant amendment.

Chris Bryant: I bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has just said that he hated politicians who preach, so I shall be very careful about the words that I choose this evening. However, I know that those hon. Members who are church wardens and Church Commissioners adopt a very different stance to the Bill, and also that there are many other religious hues in this House. I do not believe that there is one Christian, or even one religious position, on this matter. There are many different ways to view this legislation, and we should honour the personal position that each hon. Member adopts.
	I welcome the Bill, primarily because it represents another nail in the coffin of prejudice towards homosexual people in this country. This is therefore an important moment. It is more than 100 years since Edward Carpenter, one of the great founders of the Labour party, set up his household with George Merrill. He was reviled at the time for that and had to be very courageous. Some years have passed since my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was open in this Chamber about his sexuality. Many people would consider that part of the steady progress that has been made towards openness and away from prejudice.
	As I said, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, and I know that many lesbians and gay men in this country will do the same. For the sake of argument, I am sure that many will call what the Bill offers gay marriage—and I do not care at all. I am happy that the people who will benefit from the Bill will feel that they are able to enjoy the same rights, and bear the same responsibilities, as heterosexual people have been able to enjoy throughout the centuries. I think that they will accept both rights and responsibilities with open arms.
	I also welcome the Bill because it is extremely comprehensive. The Minister paid tribute to the people in her office who have made sure that it is in good order. I merely note that we are amending the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the Pharmacy Act 1954, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 and, perhaps most significantly, the Slaughterhouses Act 1974. Rights that they never even knew they did not have gay men and lesbians will now be able to enjoy.
	That is in part because of the process that we went through in Committee. I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that we have improved the Bill immeasurably. The most important improvements, to my mind, have been those on pension provision, and I pay tribute to the two Ministers and to the Paymaster General, who played an important part in making sure we were able to produce a Bill that is yet more equal and is advancing more equality than was originally intended.
	One of the most important and moving speeches made in the whole process was by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Many Members will look forward to going to the celebration of his civil partnership, and we look forward to finding out where the wedding list will be, whether it is at John Lewis or somewhere else.
	I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I passionately disagree with nearly everything he said in Committee and in the Chamber. He let himself down on a couple of occasions when he used phrases that he may wish he had not used in the light of better judgment. He said at the beginning of the Committee stage that he did not want to become its pariah. I do not know whether he then knew that that is a religious term, a Tamil word that refers to a drummer who is not allowed to take part in a religious procession. The hon. Gentleman banged his drum gracefully, and although he may not progress through the Lobby with us later, he has done a fine thing in standing up for what he believes, even if I just wish he believed in something different.
	I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). He gave us a fine speech today and has given many of them. I was intrigued to hear him give a philosophical tour d'horizon today, not least because I remember much of it appearing in his book "Saturn's Children" a few years ago, which rabidly condemned Christian socialism—and me—at length. It is a delight to see him as consistent as ever.
	I only hope that the Lords do not mess the Bill up. They messed it up when they sent it to us, giving us an unworkable Bill. They often proclaim that they are much better at drafting and improving legislation than we are, but this time we have done a far better job than they did.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I am grateful for his gracious remarks, which stand in contrast to what I am sorry to record were the ungracious remarks of the Minister.
	I will vote against the Bill. It discriminates in favour of one particular type of relationship outside marriage. It creates a type of partnership that is so akin to marriage as to be almost indistinguishable from it. My best efforts, and those of so many others, to try to reduce the worst discriminatory elements of the Bill have failed.
	I hope that the other place will insist on extending the legal privileges of the Bill beyond the homosexual community.

Robert Key: I said on Second Reading that the Bill was about justice rather than religion, prejudice or, indeed, sex. Our deliberations in the House and in Committee have proved that, and I am grateful that we have seen the Bill improved in Committee through the pension provisions. That will undoubtedly make a big difference.
	It is important, however, to recognise that the House is at its best when it takes an extremely controversial subject that divides the nation, let alone the House itself, and deals with it in a civilised manner, coming to a sensible conclusion. That, I think, is what we have done, and it does us no good at all to start sniping at each other for holding deeply opposed views. That has been as true on my side of the House as on the other, although it is fair to say to all those right hon. and hon. Members who are not present that the voting record will show that most Members on both sides have stayed away throughout proceedings on the Bill, as no doubt will be the case tonight. It is also true that a minority of my colleagues have voted against the Bill. I happen to share the view of the leadership of my party that this is a matter of justice, righting wrongs and removing injustice, and I will therefore support it on Third Reading.
	It is important that we do not give the impression that there is a single Christian view on the matter. I happen to support the majority view of the General Synod of the Church of England and the Archbishops Council that this is a matter of righting wrongs. I also believe passionately that the Bill should not be seen as introducing gay marriage. I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I said on Second Reading, and I still contend, that marriage is something unique between a man and a woman. I respect same-sex partners and recognise that they need legal recognition. The Bill does not create a group of people and discriminate in their favour. Instead, it removes an injustice because some people have been discriminated against. That is why the High Court said that the Government had to introduce the Bill and it is another good reason to vote for it tonight.
	It is important to recognise that some of our constituents will be directly affected by the Bill. There are Conservative voters in my constituency in same-sex partnerships who have helped me through the process, which I have at times found difficult to comprehend, as I said on Second Reading. The House has done a good job on the Bill and I hope that when dawn breaks tomorrow we will have many happy people as a result. I also hope that the differences expressed during the passage of the Bill will be quickly forgotten.

Ann Widdecombe: I was disappointed by the Minister's speech. There used to be a tradition, observed until recently, that when free vote issues were discussed and conscientious rather than party political divisions were expressed, tribute was paid to both sides of the argument and courtesies were extended. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) followed that tradition—

Jacqui Smith: Perhaps I may put on record now— I thought that I had done so in my speech, but I would not like it to appear that I had not—that I recognise the contribution made to the debate throughout the whole process by people with very different views. As I suggested in my speech, that has helped to contribute to a better Bill. I am sorry if Opposition Members feel that I did not pay due attention to their contributions.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement.
	I turn to the merits of the Bill, on which I asked myself the following questions. If the Bill were not to be passed tonight, would it still be the case that two people could choose, of their own free will, to form a homosexual relationship? Of course it would. Would they be able to choose to set up a household and enter into a long-term partnership? They would. However, if the Bill is passed tonight, will marriage still be unique? The answer is no, because the Bill will give rights and privileges that at the moment are unique to marriage and not enjoyed by any other sector of the population to one particular group other than the married. That is what the Bill will do. It will destroy the uniqueness that marriage holds at present.
	As I said on Second Reading, I am the first to recognise that the present system results in unkindnesses—never mind injustices—that have adverse impacts on homosexual relationships. However, I also said that that is not unique to homosexual relationships. That was what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends today sought to address. They sought to point out that some things are wrong, but they are not uniquely wrong for homosexual relationships. I would have preferred for us to address those injustices for all groups affected—or as many as possible—through the necessary and relevant legislation, such as the Finance Bill, rather than set up a situation in which no discernible difference exists between a civil marriage and a civil partnership. It was recognised by both sides of the argument tonight that that is what this Bill will do and that is why it is so wrong.

Charles Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those people are looking for recognition of their relationships? At the moment, they do not feel that they are recognised—they feel invisible under the law—and only by such a Bill do they feel that they can have that recognition.

Ann Widdecombe: The recognition that is being offered has been uniquely reserved for marriage because there is no distinction in the Bill between the rights and responsibilities contracted by a civil marriage and those contracted by a civil partnership. My fundamental objection to the Bill is that that is homosexual marriage by another name.

John Hayes: Is not the real point that some of the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) are seeking equivalence with a married relationship? Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was honest about that and described it as gay marriage, and we have heard talk of wedding lists and all sorts of other things.

Ann Widdecombe: That is indeed the point. We do not oppose the Bill to prevent people from operating their own free choice. As I said on Second Reading, God gives free will and there is no reason why we should seek to put obstacles in the way of people exercising their own free choices, but the Bill goes beyond that: it would give the uniqueness of marriage to civil partnerships.

David Borrow: The right hon. Lady accepts that there are injustices in the system, so I should be grateful to her if she would say which parts of the Bill, which we are likely to vote in favour of tonight, she thinks inappropriate and should be removed to produce a Bill that would be acceptable to her?

Ann Widdecombe: The basic premise of the Bill is that people sign a register and undertake a divorce process in all but name on the basis of irretrievable breakdown. In other words, there is nothing to distinguish civil marriage from civil partnerships. That is the basis of my opposition. The injustices, such as those in respect of inheritance tax, next of kin and all the rest, can be put right for homosexuals and others using different legislation.
	I shall finish now because I know that other hon. Members are waiting to speak, but I stress that, although the hon. Member for Rhondda suggested that the basic opposition to the Bill arose because we are making moral judgments about homosexuality, my opposition to the Bill is based on keeping marriage unique and addressing any injustices that may exist through other means.

Patrick Cormack: It is a great privilege to follow two of my hon. Friends, and as I listened to them both, I could not help but think, "Would that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) were as sound on hunting as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)." That, in a sense, illustrates how moral issues and issues of conscience divide hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those of us who are clearly in a minority must not be churlish, but that does not mean that we abandon what we believe to be right.
	I received this morning a petition from many hundreds of constituents who are deeply troubled about the Bill. They are not nasty, homophobic people; they hold to traditional views and values—[Interruption.] That comment does a great disservice to many of the constituents of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) because many people in his constituency, as in mine, are decent honourable people who hold to traditional values. Yes, we may be wrong—of course, we all have to concede that we may be wrong—but the fact is that people hold to those views for good reasons.
	I do not impugn the integrity of those who advocate the Bill. I do not impugn for a moment the integrity of those who advocate gay marriage, as they call it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was being honest when he said that that was in effect what the Bill was moving towards.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that I think that the Bill will create gay marriage. Many people will use "gay marriage" as shorthand for the Bill's provisions, but I believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Patrick Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard, he will find that he said that he would not mind at all if people regarded this as gay marriage.
	I do not want to get bogged down in semantic arguments with the hon. Gentleman or anyone else. I only want to say in the brief time that remains that the House will tonight pass a Bill—we know that it will be given its Third Reading with an enormous majority—that marks a real change in our society. In making that change, the House must realise that a society that changes without recognising whence it comes is rather intolerant. It is important to realise the background of many of our constituents who will be troubled by the Bill. I wish those who will benefit from it nothing but personal happiness—I hope that that will be their lot—but many people in my constituency and elsewhere are troubled because they can equate the partnerships granted by the Bill with marriage, and because of the fact that it is only from the union of a man and woman, whether they are married or not, that a future generation can come.
	Such matters trouble ordinary people throughout the land, so I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) recognised that in his thoughtful and dignified speech. I ask those who will cheer when the result of the Division is announced to have some regard for those who need to be convinced that they are wrong and that the majority in the House is worthy of a majority in the country. I remain profoundly disturbed about the consequences of what we are about to enact.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: As I said in Committee on 26 October, I was surprised when the Minister asserted that the Government's consultation on the proposals had received
	"at every single point  . . . approbation and support from the majority of those who have responded".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 19 October 2004; c. 8.]
	That was not the case in Northern Ireland, where 86 per cent. of respondents opposed the Government's proposals. However, the Government will impose the Bill on the people of Northern Ireland despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of those people and their political representatives. We in Northern Ireland do not accept that. I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have the opportunity to revisit the legislation because we will try to amend it to reflect the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland who oppose the Government's actions.

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the people of Northern Ireland would do well to be more tolerant in the future?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The people of Northern Ireland are very tolerant. This is nothing to do with tolerance, but with what people want, how they want to order their lives and the kind of society in which they wish to live. The House should be more tolerant of the people of Northern Ireland and their views on these issues.
	The Government are ignoring the views of the people of Northern Ireland. They could have accepted the amendment that I moved in Committee and thus left the matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide, but unfortunately they rejected the amendment, and thus the views of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
	If the Bill is passed, it will not change my view, that of my hon. Friends or that of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. The Bill is still wrong. I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that civil partnerships can be equated with marriages, which will be to the detriment of our society.

John Bercow: This is a first-class Bill and I am delighted to support it. It has got better as it has gone along. I have been absolutely inspired by the leadership on the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I respect the dissenting opinion of some of my hon. Friends, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would like to express that in the 10 seconds that remain.

Gerald Howarth: The last word falls to me. I profoundly oppose the Bill. It will have serious consequences for our country which are as yet unfathomed. It will damage the moral fabric of our society—

NOTHING
	It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [12 October].
	The House divided: Ayes 389, Noes 47.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In this House tonight, there was a vote, but the voice of the people whom I and the majority of Unionists represent could not be heard because of the way in which the business was ordered. Surely, it is a sad commentary on this House when the voice of one section of this United Kingdom cannot be heard in the debate. I appeal to you to think of the minority from Northern Ireland in this House in future and to see to it that their voices will be heard and that at least one of their amendments will be selected and voted on.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for the Chair, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments was published and that the House had agreed to the programme motion and the time set aside to debate the Bill.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 3, 4, 5 and 6.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 1985 (International Accounting Standards and Other Accounting Amendments) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.
	That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 2621), dated 6th October 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.

Partnership

That the Limited Liability Partnerships (Fees) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 2620), dated 6th October 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.

Children And Young Persons

That the draft Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and Commission for Social Care Inspection) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees).

Marketing Of Oilseed Rape Genetically Modified For Glyphosate Tolerance

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12343/04, draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of an oilseed rape product (Brassica napus L., GT73 line) genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance; and supports the Government's view that, although expert advice indicates that there probably are no safety concerns, it can adopt a position on authorisation under Directive 2001/18/EC only on receipt of satisfactory data from a further rat feeding study using 15% oilseed rape meal.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees).

Credit Institutions And Investment Firms

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11545/04, and adds 1-3 draft Directive re-casting Directive 2000/12/EC relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and Council Directive 93/6/EEC on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions; and notes that the Government, whilst supportive of the aims of the proposals, is seeking to amend them to ensure they fit with realities of the EU market and, in particular, the circumstances of smaller banks, building societies and investment firms.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS

Ordered,
	That, in respect of Questions to the Advocate General and the Secretary of State for Scotland for oral answer on Tuesday 30th November in the next Session of Parliament, paragraph (5)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments) shall apply with the substitution of 'three days' for 'four days'.—[Margaret Moran.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Epping Forest

Eleanor Laing: I wish to present to the House a petition signed by more than 13,000 people who live in the vicinity of Epping Forest. Epping forest is an ancient forest, substantially located within the green belt. The biosphere of the forest is in danger of being damaged by the Government's plan to build large numbers of new houses in the green belt. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the research on which plans for new housing in the Epping Forest district are based and to confirm that the principle of protecting the green belt will be upheld.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Epping Forest District and surrounding areas and interested parties,
	Declares that Epping Forest is an ancient forest which is protected by an Act of Parliament that it lies substantially within the Metropolitan Green Belt which is also protected by an Act of Parliament and that plans for development of land in the Epping Forest District must take into account not only the land on which the Forest stands but also the "biosphere" of the Forest.
	The Petitioners further declare that the plans of the Government and its agents to build very large numbers of new houses in the Green Belt are of great concern to the Petitioners.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the research on which plans for new houses in the Epping Forest District are based, and to confirm that the principle of protecting the Green Belt will be upheld.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

BUS SERVICES (WALLASEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Angela Eagle: In 1985, the Conservative Government completely deregulated all bus services outside London. That policy failed to achieve all its stated objectives, which were to reverse the decline in passenger numbers, to reduce fares and to reduce public subsidy. In fact, the opposite has happened in the past 18 years.
	Bus deregulation in Wallasey has caused poorer quality and less reliability, higher fares and a worse service. Three years ago, just as the Labour Government were calling for a more integrated transport system and providing generous amounts of public money to pay for it, Arriva Merseyside, the main bus operator in my constituency, decided that it would not integrate bus services, but that it would disintegrate them instead. It prevented all the buses taking my constituents, who are often elderly, through the Mersey tunnels to Lime Street station or the inter-city bus station from actually running to the stations themselves. Arriva stopped the buses before they got to Queens square in Liverpool, which meant that those wishing to make major transport connections had to get off and struggle up a hill with their luggage to get to the inter-city connections.
	Three hundred people turned up to an evening meeting that I called to protest against that. Arriva managers explained that they had taken the decision in order to prevent the traffic commissioners from fining them for late running. Buses were getting delayed in traffic around Queens square, so they decided to minimise their liability to fines by stopping the tunnel buses short of all mainline stations. Those attending the meeting said that twice as many people would have attended if they had been confident that they could get a bus home afterwards. I will never forget one man at the meeting, who was a wheelchair user. He had travelled in his electric wheelchair across the docks from Birkenhead to attend and had been refused access to several buses on the way because the drivers would not get out in order to operate the lift mechanism—he had no idea how he would get home again that night.
	More recently, Arriva has been at it again. It has just ceased running the 405, the 406, and 407 and the 408, which ran between Birkenhead and New Brighton via Leasowe and Moreton. That completely cut the direct bus links between two parts of my constituency and caused an outcry that was taken up by the Wallasey News on its front page. Both the newspaper and I were inundated with complaints about the decision, as were local councillors, especially Ron Abbey, who is Wirral council's representative on the passenger transport authority.
	On 9 October, we held a meeting at the town hall, attended by close to 100 angry passengers, at which Arriva once more emphasised that it was a commercial operator whose main motive was to make a profit. It was not considering the viability of the network or people's need to be able to shop or to go to work on public transport—it was concerned only about its own profitability. The outcry was so great, however, that it reinstated a small single-decker bus on a trial basis to replace the four services. However, that runs only once an hour and does not operate in the evenings or on Sundays, and given such a restricted timetable there is very little chance that it will be used enough to survive.
	In making these arbitrary changes, Arriva has ensured that there is now no direct bus service from Moreton and Leasowe to the Asda store in Liscard, which is the only major supermarket in the constituency. As a result, those wishing to shop at the store face a 20-minute walk from the centre of Liscard with a much harder return journey carrying the shopping. Those of my constituents who live on the Millhouse estate in Moreton now have to walk a mile even to get to the nearest bus stop.
	Arriva's disgraceful decision to break the established link between Moreton, Leasowe and New Brighton has also meant that Merseytravel has had to find an extra £135,000 every year to enable some of my younger constituents to get to school. At the other end of the age spectrum, we have an above-average number of pensioners in Wallasey and access to private cars is below average, yet the bus service is costing us all more and getting worse.
	I receive an increasing number of complaints about the reliability of the bus services that are still running. All too regularly, timetabled services simply do not show up, leaving people stranded and late for work. The 423, which runs from Seacombe, Liscard, Leasowe and Moreton to Arrowe Park—the acute hospital that serves Wallasey—is notoriously unreliable. Its unpredictability leaves patients late for their appointments and staff late for their shifts. Scheduled services that are not full often sail past a queue of passengers without even bothering to stop. The 433 is a particular culprit in that respect. That is presumably because they are running late and need to avoid those fines from the traffic commissioners. What on earth is the point of a bus service that fails to pick up its passengers simply to minimise the operator's liability to fines?
	Little wonder that the latest figures show that bus passenger usage in Merseyside is falling. However, the cost to the public purse of paying for this worsening service is rising. Unsurprisingly, Arriva's profits, which seem to be all that it really cares about, are rising too. Last year, on a turnover of £58.5 million Arriva Merseyside made a tidy operating profit of 8.4 per cent. As well as significant capital inputs through the local transport plan, Merseytravel contributed £66.3 million from its revenue budget to the bus operators last year. In the past few years, supported network costs have increased from 15 to 20 per cent. of the total cost. While last year saw a fall in commercial patronage of 1.6 per cent., there was a rise of 7.3 per cent. in supported usage. There is no clearer indication that providing a public service does not feature in the calculations of the bus operators, but making big profits does.
	Merseytravel now spends £19.2 million a year on maintaining an inadequate bus network rather than on improving it because it has to keep reintroducing socially vital routes, which Arriva has abandoned as unprofitable. Fares have been going up, too. Rises three times the level of inflation have led to the unacceptable result that bus passengers living on modest incomes in Merseyside pay between 8 and 9 per cent. of their disposable income towards travel each month, compared with a United Kingdom average of 5.6 per cent. There is increasing evidence that those unacceptably high costs prevent people from taking up education and training opportunities and even jobs.
	That cuts across the Government's central and increasingly successful efforts to increase job opportunities for all. Merseytravel has tried to help by introducing its Job Link services from pathways areas to key employment sites at unsocial hours for a low fare. However, the Tory Transport Act 1985 means that no strategic planning of bus networks to ensure social objectives and to meet people's needs is possible.
	High fares impact most on those who are least able to afford them and have no choice but to try to use buses because they do not have access to a private car. Outside peak hours or at weekends, their options are now severely limited. The behaviour of the bus operators in Merseyside has constantly undermined all Merseytravel's attempts to put its bus strategy into operation.
	In the public consultation on its bus strategy for Merseyside, Merseytravel asked passengers what they wished to see. Three quarters wanted reliability to be improved. Half the respondents felt that cheaper fares, through-ticketing and longer hours of operation were vital. Ninety per cent. believed that deregulation of services must be reversed and that Merseytravel should have a much greater role in planning and controlling the network and the timetable.
	What should be done? In the short term, I recognise that the disastrous Tory deregulation of bus services cannot be reversed without primary legislation, though I believe that it should be a Labour priority in a third term. I also recognise that Labour's Transport Act 2000 created the possibility of quality partnerships between passenger transport executives and bus operators in an effort to improve the quality of services. Unfortunately, those have largely failed. While the public sector has fulfilled its side of the bargain, often investing a great deal of money in improving local road infrastructure, the Audit Commission has pointed out that bus operators have given little back in return. According to the Audit Commission, passenger transport executives and local authorities have typically contributed four times the investment that bus operators have put in. Only half those involved in quality partnerships thought that they had worked well.
	I believe that the time is right to pilot quality contracts, for which section 124 of the Transport Act 2000 allows. That can be done only if passenger transport executives are satisfied that it is the only practical way to implement their bus strategies. The recent behaviour of local bus operators has convinced Merseytravel that a quality contract is the only way forward.
	I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider piloting a quality contract in Merseyside. It would allow Merseytravel to decide what bus services should be provided and to what standards, including fare levels, frequencies and timetables. It would grant operators exclusive rights to provide services to Merseytravel's specification and standards and it would secure that by tender with operators.
	Merseytravel is a well-organised and well-run passenger transport executive. I might even say that it is the best in the country. It is strategic, forward thinking and proactive. I believe that Merseytravel could demonstrate that, even under current legislation, there is a way of achieving much better value for money and a much better bus service for my constituents, who desperately need it.
	I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench—I know that she is doing a great job. I urge her to make it even greater by granting Merseytravel's wish to pilot quality bus contracts. Labour's national policy forum recently endorsed the introduction of quality contracts as the way forward. Such a contract would give Merseytravel a chance to show the way and allow it to create a high-quality, reliable bus network fit for the 21st century. My long-suffering constituents deserve nothing less.

Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on securing this important debate. I was most concerned to hear of the problems that her constituents are experiencing with the local Arriva bus services. As she has pointed out, buses are central to an integrated transport strategy. They provide two thirds of all public transport journeys and play a vital role in tackling congestion and promoting access and inclusion. I welcome this opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to try to improve the quality of bus services in Merseyside.
	Funding is an important part of the mix of factors that has to be brought to bear in improving public transport. In December, we announced a £1.9 billion capital settlement for local transport, an increase of £200 million compared with the previous year. Much of that is for bus-related projects, and £65 million of that settlement is for Merseytravel. Of that, £22.7 million was for small-scale integrated transport schemes to ease congestion, increase safety and create a better environment. Wirral's share was about £5.5 million.
	Gorsey lane, in my hon. Friend's constituency, provides a good example of how those funds have been used to improve bus reliability. Buses on this corridor were suffering significant peak-hour delays. To address this problem, together with parking, access and safety issues, the lane has been transformed into a three-lane highway with two lanes for general traffic and a 920 m bus lane that allows northbound buses to bypass evening peak-hour congestion. Speed cameras, improved facilities for pedestrians, a new bus priority junction and segregated cycleways have also been provided.
	Good progress has also been made on a range of key cross-boundary transport initiatives designed to enhance accessibility within the Greater Merseyside travel-to-work area. These include improved cross-boundary bus links between Wirral and Deeside, a Department for Transport-funded cross-boundary real-time passenger information system on a key bus corridor linking Runcorn, Widnes and Liverpool and preparation work on the extension of Merseytravel's pre-paid ticketing scheme to cover Halton.
	Since 2002, Merseyside has spent £1.3 million on bus priority schemes and £12.4 million on bus infrastructure schemes, implementing improvements such as seven quality bus corridor showcase route schemes, three bus way or bus lane schemes, and seven other bus priority schemes, among others.
	I am concerned to hear, however, that the unacceptably high costs of travel are preventing people from taking up education and training opportunities and even jobs. My hon. Friend referred to the successful Job Link initiative, which I had the pleasure of hearing about when I was last in Merseyside. The Job Link network seeks to maximise access to the wide range of employment, training and work-based learning opportunities being created through the regeneration of Merseyside. The services have been developed in three phases to encompass the whole of Merseyside, and have received nearly £3.2 million.
	The Job Link network has involved both fixed-route, timetabled bus services linking deprived residential areas of high unemployment to key employment sites, and new demand-responsive door-to-door services providing transport to employment and training opportunities for clients referred to the scheme from partner organisations such as Jobcentre Plus, Action Team for Jobs and JET—jobs, enterprise and training—centres.
	In addition, Merseyside was selected as one of 10 pilot locations for the Kickstart initiative, with an award of £504,000 for Airlink. This scheme, developed in a constructive partnership between Merseytravel and Arriva, will significantly enhance public transport links to the Speke/Halewood strategic investment area and Liverpool John Lennon airport from the St. Helens, Prescot and Huyton areas.
	However, as my hon. Friend points out, there are significant challenges facing Merseyside. While there has been steady progress to improve the reliability and punctuality of bus services, there have been significant problems. As she has said, bus patronage has dropped in Merseyside.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the traffic commissioners. They have been reviewing their enforcement of registered bus services in conjunction with the Bus Partnership Forum. I shall be chairing a meeting of the forum on 29 November, when we shall consider a whole new approach to improving and enforcing bus punctuality. The Traffic Management Act 2004 will also help to make buses more punctual, as local authorities manage their road network more effectively.
	My hon. Friend has argued the case for some form of re-regulation, and I listened to her arguments carefully. I agree of course that it is essential that areas outside London have high-quality bus services as part of a modern, integrated transport system. We are keen to help create the conditions to make that happen. But we need to consider carefully how best to go about that. We must think carefully before assuming that replicating the London arrangements is a necessary or sufficient condition for delivering better bus services elsewhere. The Commission for Integrated Transport has pointed out that the regulated bus market in Belfast has not delivered patronage growth.
	In the deregulated system, some bus operators have risen to the challenge and won bus industry awards for innovations in ticketing, marketing, environmental protection and customer service. Our experience is that the effectiveness of bus services depends on the level of partnership between local authorities and bus operators.

Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend share my worries that local bus operators do not currently have incentives to do anything other than maximise their profits? They can often do that by minimising, or at least not having growth, in bus mileage or routes. All the figures demonstrate that. While I am not arguing for an exact replica of the London situation, does she agree that we could get better value for money if we had some form of route franchising?

Charlotte Atkins: We certainly want better value for money, because while I appreciate that some bus operators are doing a good job, others are not. Sometimes, the performance of bus operators varies significantly around the country, with good performance in some areas and bad performance in others. We must therefore do much more to try to raise the bus operators' game. I appreciate that it is sometimes not clear that those issues are being addressed by bus operators, who, after all, are concerned about boosting profits.
	We want to build partnerships. I appreciate that there has not been much of a partnership in Wallasey, not least between my hon. Friend and Arriva. I hope that we can explore ways of creating a proper partnership. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened a new £5 million Arriva depot in Birkenhead last May. I hope that that can be a basis on which to build rapid improvements in bus services through constructive dialogue.
	The Transport Act 2000 enables local authorities to set up quality contracts where that is the only practicable way of implementing their bus strategy. The Government cannot approve a pilot quality contract outside of the procedures that Parliament laid down in the Act. It is up to the individual local transport authority to make its case. As part of its preparations for the next local transport round, however, I am aware that Merseytravel is in the process of revising its bus strategy, which is currently out for consultation. That strategy contains a detailed assessment of progress in the development of Merseyside's bus network. I am aware that Merseytravel is considering the introduction of a quality contract. Quality contracts suspend the deregulated bus market and allow authorities to plan and control bus services as in London, where bus services are run by private operators under contract to Transport for London. A local authority can specify fares, routes, timetables and driver training.
	The legislative framework is already in place; it is a question of making it work. We are keen to remove barriers that might prevent local authorities from considering introducing quality contracts when it is clear that the criteria in the 2000 Act can be met. A particular issue has been the 21-month statutory minimum wait before implementation of a scheme. We have announced our intention of reducing that to six months. We will also shortly publish guidance on applying for a quality contract.
	Looking to the future, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Department for Transport is working closely with local authorities and passenger transport authorities to develop new ways of involving local and regional stakeholders in the making of decisions on transport investment and service delivery. As part of that process, we held meetings last year with Liverpool city council and Merseytravel, and more meetings are planned with Wirral metropolitan borough council. I shall visit Merseytravel later this month, and I shall be pleased to discuss its proposals for the future with its representatives in more detail.
	The Government's vision is of an integrated system that offers users choice, and encourages the use of public transport. We need to work at a local level to ensure that we have the appropriate balance of regulation, partnership, traffic management and funding to make the delivery of public transport a success. I hope that we can achieve that in Wallasey.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.